In his fascinating book Carbon Detox, George Marshall argues that people are not persuaded by information. Our views are formed by the views of the people with whom we mix. Of the narratives that might penetrate these circles, we are more likely to listen to those that offer us some reward. A story that tells us that the world is cooking and that we'll have to make sacrifices for the sake of future generations is less likely to be accepted than the more rewarding idea that climate change is a conspiracy hatched by scheming governments and venal scientists, and that strong, independent-minded people should unite to defend their freedoms. He proposes that instead of arguing for sacrifice, environmentalists should show where the rewards might lie: that understanding what the science is saying and planning accordingly is the smart thing do, which will protect your interests more effectively than flinging abuse at scientists. We should emphasize the old-fashioned virtues of uniting in the face of a crisis, of resourcefulness and community action. Projects like the transition town's network and proposals for a green new deal tell a story which people are more willing to hear.
According to the text, what are George’s points of view?