I don't think that is what motivates those people holding those ideas. They want to be defiant — ChatteringMonkey

Oh, I wasn't saying that they're motivated by stupidity. The people themselves might not even be stupid. But I don't think it's an arbitrary manifestation of defiance either. In almost every example I can think of where obviously outrageous claims are made in defence of such defiance, it corresponds to an impact on someone's personal life or beliefs, from insane anti-Semitic 9-11 theories and "teach the controversy", through Pizzagate, to the Covid hoax and postal voter fraud. It's rarely difficult to see why someone is adopting or defending a batshit crazy theory.

Defiance for defiance sake doesn't require or justify idiotic conspiracy theories.

Right, there's certainly some self-serving going on too.

Still I can't help but think there is something more to it. Take the protest against wearing masks for instance. I have to wear a mask as soon as I leave my house, and I don't feel that it impacts my 'quality of life' in any meaningful way... and find it hard to believe that it would bother other people that much. So why is it that something that innocuous would be met with that much protest, especially considering what is at stake? It seems as if even the slightest concession to some collective goal is to much to ask. One might point to ideologies that put an emphasis on individual liberties, and look for an explanation in people wanting to rationalize their ideologically inspired beliefs. But that seems to be merely pushing the question a bit further to why do these ideologies find so much support in the first place, especially when faced with a world that clearly demands collective action on a number of levels.

Anyway, you're right that this does not bode well for solving the climate crisis. Question is what would be a solution, if there is any? I don't think the solution is more information about the end times, like this type of OP seem to assume, because as I said, it seems more a matter of not wanting to believe (for whatever reason), than a matter of ignorance, incorrect information or stupidity.

One might point to ideologies that put an emphasis on individual liberties, and look for an explanation in people wanting to rationalize their ideologically inspired beliefs. — ChatteringMonkey

That is true, but distinct. The liberty objection has been put, and I think this also weighs in on the question. But that just highlights the madness of reaching for a conspiracy theory among those who apparently find the ideological challenge insufficient.

I do think, though, that libertarianism is enough of a barrier to climate change action, even without crazed conspiracy theories. We cannot be free to do as we please and take responsibility for the world, since we have demonstrated that, given the former, we do not act on the latter.

When it come to wind turbines there are those who claim that if all the energy taken to mine, transport and process the materials they are constructed form, install them, maintain them, deconstruct them and dispose of the waste is taken into account, they are not carbon neutral by any means. — Janus

Constructing win farms isn't carbon neutral, but neither is constructing fossil fuel plants. They take less to construct now AFAIK - they're much lighter and more efficient than they used to be! Fossil fuel plants take a lot more carbon to keep going - they need to be supplied with coal, the coal needs to be transported. Obviously the benefits of windfarms are only relative in construction, but (again AFAIK) they don't need anywhere near as much upkeep carbon.

I'll be honest and admit I didn't have the time to read that article thoroughly. I would love it if it were true that organic farming can be as productive per hectare as industrial agriculture. But, even if it were, would we not still be reliant on fossil fuels for the large-scale transportation required to feed the global population? — Janus

I read a few papers a while ago showing that poly-cultural sustainable crops can have more yield than mono-cultural non-sustainable ones. I have to say I wasn't particularly critical when I was reading them.

What I'm gonna call the Master Doom Argument goes like this:

( 1 ) We need an immediate (enough) transition to carbon neutral or carbon negative global production of electricity, water and food otherwise civilisation will collapse.
( 2 ) Every intervention towards a carbon neutral or negative transition is a huge coordination problem and requires fossil fuels to get it going.
( 3 ) Both elements of ( 2 ) mean no transition will be immediate (enough).
( 4 ) Civilisation will collapse.

I think the Master Doom Argument is very persuasive. But the bolded "every" and the bolded "enough" are doing a lot of work in evincing the severity of the conclusion in (4). Since neither of us are experts, and I doubt either of us are sitting on a long pdf document analysing the trajectory of civilisation, going into the specifics of what might help is likely pointless between us. However, the overall argument structure is something we can talk about.

So the severity of the conclusion; civilisation's collapse; depends a lot on how much damage climate change will do to global society. I think it's plausible that a lot of damage can be done, but civilisation will not collapse. There's a burden of proof in establishing the positive claim (civilisation will collapse) that isn't there in establishing the plausibility or (sufficient) risk of the positive claim being true (civilisation might collapse/we are exposed to the risk of civilisation's collapse through climate change). Though that "sufficient" will do a lot of work there and people have different risk tolerances blah blah (insert whole literature (or two) here).

There are two things that weaken the argument for me, one undermines (without strictly refuting) the "every" in ( 2 ), one undermines (without strictly refuting) the "enough" in (2). I think we've got to start by biting the bullet that massive changes are required on a global scale. Even in addressing it, the institutional coordination required to address the coordination problem in ( 2 ) is huge... But, notice that there's an implicit dependence on an index that ( 2 ) glosses over (hiding it in "Every"). It says that every transition towards sustainable global production is a huge coordination problem; but what if that's not true? It could well be that the transitions get easier as more happen. EG:

This next paragraph is heavily inspired by climate science journalist Potholer54's Youtube video on climate change solutions at scale. If we were in a position that about 1% of the Sahara desert was covered in up-to-date solar cells, that would provide approximately the required electricity for the whole world (I have heard, but can dig up a citation for you if required). If we were in a position where hydrogen could be split from water at scale using that electricity - that would provide a green alternative fuel to fossil fuel which can do everything it can (though there's obviously costs seeing as hydrogen fuels are so volatile). If we were in a position where pipelines and logistics for (maybe safer) hydrogen fuel were widespread, the switch to hydrogen would be relatively painless. Transcontinental power grids are possible too. If you had transcontinental power grids and hydrogen pipelines+logistics, you have aeroplanes and industry and stuff can be green into the future.

So I think ( 2 ) as stated is undermined a bit; it's plausible that the transitions get easier as they accumulate. But steel-manning it gives something like:

( 2a ) There are some PRE-REQUISITE transitions towards a sustainable global production strategy required for any other transition to take place and those PRE-REQUISITE transitions cannot be completed immediately enough to prevent the collapse of civilisation.

( 2a ) might as well be "we're all fucked" the premise, but there's still the ambiguity about the nature of the collapse after it's granted.

I think that's where the "enough" comes in - it does a lot of legwork, if you leave it vague its meaning can be tailored to the severity of the consequences. If stuff isn't done immediately enough, there will be societal damage that scales with how immediately, with some thresh-hold on immediately that leads to extinction events... And that vagueness itself is pretty scary.

And it should be noted that the religious cannot even enter into this conversation, they do not live in the real world — JerseyFlight

The perpetual survival of religion in every time and place for thousands of years argues to the contrary. If religion was a creature we'd have to say it's very well adapted to it's environment.

The underlying mechanism pushing the modern world towards crisis and collapse is our relationship with knowledge. Yup, that again.

Would you give a shotgun to a 6 year old boy for his birthday? Probably not. You'd easily recognize that such a gap between maturity and power could be very dangerous, and that due to the power of shotguns a single mistake could be a game over event. This is just simple common sense.

But when the boy becomes an adult we throw common sense out the window and assume without questioning that adult humans should have as much power as the knowledge explosion can provide, and as fast as possible. And so the gap between incremental maturity growth and exponential power development widens at an ever accelerating pace.

This is the first time we've attempted to create something as complex as globalized technological civilization, so it should be no surprise if we don't get it right on the first try. The Roman Empire came and went, and we will too, just like every civilization to come before. It could take tens of thousands of years before we figure out how to make this work.

If this is the peak of this cycle of civilization, we should be grateful that we got to be here to experience it.

Thanks for your well-thought response. I actually agree with most of what you say, or at least right now can find no clear reason to disagree, but there are some points I'd like to engage with and I think I need to do some more reading to enable me to respond adequately, and right now I don't have much time on my hands.

I also feel a sense of reluctance: on the one hand I do want to look at these issues as dispassionately and truthfully as possible, and on the other I don't wish to promulgate any sense of resignation or hopelessness. It's an incredibly complex set of issues, and writing about it is a delicate balancing act; especially since we really don't know what the future will bring.

Hopefully later...

There is no end of life for religion. Therefore they cannot even comprehend what's at stake. Further, apocalyptic events are contained within the hand of God, therefore they cannot comprehend the reality of what is occurring here.

If this is the peak of this cycle of civilization, we should be grateful that we got to be here to experience it. — Hippyhead

It is very likely that this will be humanity's last civilizatory cycle. If we destroy ourselves - and it is almost certain that we will - I very much doubt that another human civilization based on fossil fuels will emerge again. With the easiest roots to reach depleted, and without the current technology capable of reaching the deepest and most difficult, we will probably never leave a medieval proto-modern state of technology again. Unless we develop some other way of producing energy other than with fossil fuel. Humanity may surprise us, but I still believe it will be the end.

It is very likely that this will be humanity's last civilizatory cycle. — Gus Lamarch

You could be right, and of course I don't know. But unless humanity goes extinct, such as in a giant asteroid strike, then I'd guess civilization would emerge again in some form, just as it always has. You know, after the Roman Empire collapsed it took Europe a thousand years to get back on track, but it did eventually happen. But the time scales involved may be geologic. The earth could be covered in ice a couple more times before we finally figure it out.

Anyway, we don't really care that much, so perhaps discussing it is pointless.