The suggestion is to form an orderly queue
— unenlightened
"An orderly queue" for what? Dying? To be executed? — baker

It is really rather tedious to have to explain one's creative use of idioms, but at the second quote from you of the same phrase: it is a cliche of British English used in many ways ...

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2016/02/06/forming-an-orderly-queue

... for example.

It is the proverbial way we Bits organise every cooperative undertaking, and in my usage above should be taken figuratively not literally to mean that the suggestion is to organise cooperatively to deal with the situation as best we can for the benefit of all.

It that sufficiently clear for you now?

Because you're sticking to your old guns. — baker

You only know the things I write here, you know nothing else. But you act upon such lack of knowledge and perform judgement. This is just a dishonest attempt at framing the other in a discussion as a form of ad hominem.

I'm not criticizing you for being rude or mean, I'm criticizing you for being ineffective. Because I want you to be effective.

You have some really strange ideas about my intentions here. — baker

And you are too vague about your intentions as well as framing it in very odd rhetoric.

Once again, you do not know anything other than what you read of me here. As I've pointed out many times now; if there are deniers, there's no point in trying to convince them as they are acting through a cult mentality. You cannot convince them as long as they are deeply rooted within their community of denial.

So what efficiency are you talking about? Being efficient in achieving what exactly?

For me, a question like, "How do you talk to someone who thinks that mankind will adapt to whatever comes, when it comes; so that this person will change their mind and act differently, more in line with planet preservation?" makes perfect sense, to you, it clearly doesn't. — baker

And it's been done to death. How much more education do these people need? The denial group have slowly started to go into just acceptance of a changing world, but they do so in the context of not acting anyway. The outcome of their reasoning is the same as their previous pure denial.

If they are unable to understand that mitigation is still necessary so as to not completely ruin everything and that not acting will cause millions of deaths as a result, then they haven't really been convinced, they have only moved their goal posts of their denial towards a new position of defending their inaction and ignorance.

Why should the world cater to these people? Why should we continue wasting time trying to convince them and not just move on with the debate towards what solutions will work best?

But is being harsh to those people leading to the result you want, namely, an improved state of the planet? — baker

By ignoring them and implementing changes to society anyway, yes, we will save millions and mitigate the worst damages. There's no time to build public opinion through convincing these people, it will be too late. The strategies need to circumvent slow progress, the damage of such rapid progress will be microscopic against the consequence of not doing so.

Treating these people as immoral is not an act of entitlement, it is an act of building a collective sense of morality that can drive changes in society. If it is considered moral to support actions taken to mitigate climate change and immoral not to, then it will use social structures to form public opinion rather than being dependent on uneducated or people unequipped to understand complex knowledge.

Structural racism have rarely been fought through educating racists to not support such structural racism; that does not work until they've instinctually already left the racist mindset. Instead it has been a moral dimension that's been most effective transforming society. Reshaping the idea of dividing people into being an immoral act at its core. Then, people don't have to understand any complex knowledge about a subject, they just have to accept the more instinctually programmed moral codes in the social structures they exist in. That's why I don't just call them uneducated, idiots or conspiratorial cultists, but also immoral people who support a destructive movement through inaction or active action against mitigation efforts.

View them as immoral people, just like racists, abusers and other immoral people. Don't act like they're just expressing some opinions that have some balanced value, because there's no such balance. It's like saying that a racist statement is just as morally acceptable as someone making a statement about love. It's not. Making statements that push public opinion towards ignorance about climate change is an immoral act that can with enough collective public drive cause delays that will kill millions. It is pushing dominos in a direction of pure horror and that is simply an immoral act.

I think it should still be possible to talk to such people in ways that will get through them.
It might just take more creativity and effort, and inventing new strategies. — baker

You don't think this has been done for decades now? There's no time left to keep doing this. If we had 50 years more to slowly change people's mind, yes, but just look at how far anti-racism has gotten. Shouldn't we've been freed of such idiocy by now? Aren't we educated enough by now to understand how immoral and stupid racism is? We still have major problems with that and more education and trying to convince racists does not help. The only thing that helps is to shut them up and make policies against racism.

If you have some idea that hasn't been tried to death before regarding convincing these people, then everyone's listening. But there's no practical value to just pointing out that there "should be some way to convince them". If we are to act now, then the solution is to just ignore them, make policies regardless of their opinions and just shut them up. There's simply no time educating these adult children.

How are you going to "just do what's needed"? By abolishing democracy? — baker

When it comes to the issues with climate change, it has nothing to do with abolishing democracy. It's not a question of opinion or idealism, it is a fact of our world's reality and a fact that points in a certain problematic direction for everyone. Everyone, globally, should take action towards mitigating climate change and stop listening to these immoral people. That is not the same as abolishing democracy.

Like, if there was a comet coming towards us and the entire world economy and all nations need to act together to solve it fast. Would you leave that up to democracy? To be debated? To try and convince idiots that the problem is real? No, all nations would just move towards solutions like if they had a giant bulldozer. They would run the idiots over and everyone who understands the dangers would cheer it on.

I think they just fight against having their minds changed by the strategies used so far. Other strategies might yield better results. — baker

The people we are talking about are not discussing the most effective strategies, they are opposing what would be minor inconveniences in their lives. The only ones equipped to really decide the best strategies are the actual scientists, experts and engineers working to solve the problems. Regular people should shut up and listen to these experts. Politicians should shut up and listen to the solutions. The moral dimension around the subject need to become more clear to the public.

As an example, I used to work as a mathematics tutor. A highschool student came in to be tutored about linear functions. This was her last chance; if she would fail the next test, she would be expelled from school. The situation was dire. She was first tutored by an older tutor, I witnessed some of their sessions. It was clear right away that the student didn't have a grasp on fractions and rules for solving equations. Without mastering those basic things, it's impossible to do linear functions. But the old tutor insisted on working on linear functions with the student. They made no progress and he gave up on her, declaring her to be a hopeless case. The student was then assigned to me. We spent the summer learning fractions and basic rules for equations, things she should have mastered years ago. She passed the test, completed her education, even earned and master's degree.

Your attitude is that of a teacher; a teacher's goal is to teach. My attitude is that of a tutor; a tutor's goal is to get the student to learn the subject matter, (almost) no matter what it takes. — baker

Failing that education would not result in potentially millions of deaths and extremely changed living conditions of the entire global population. Sorry, but this analogy does not work for the subject of climate change as it does not have a moral consequence and the dimension of time to avoid such a consequence. Class is over, the semester is done, action needs to be taken.

There you go, outsourcing responsibility again. — baker

How am I outsourcing responsibility when I point in the direction of the one's who are actually responsible to take the actions needed? What responsibility are you suggesting me to have and take? Isn't it responsible to also push for actions taken now and not caring for the saboteurs working against these necessary actions? Isn't it taking responsibility to try and push for a moral realm of thinking around this subject and abandoning the idea that this is some debate of ideals?

What type of responsibility is valid in your book? Considering the urgent time for action and the lack of time to educate people actively giving experts the finger? Did that student give you the finger when you tried to help her? No, because your analogy is about people wanting to be educated, it's nowhere near the reality of this subject matter. I'm all for education, but we don't have time to educate people in order for them to support solutions to a damn comet on collision course with earth. In such a situation you simply ignore the ignorant and take the necessary action that is needed right now.

if there are deniers, there's no point in trying to convince them as they are acting through a cult mentality. You cannot convince them as long as they are deeply rooted within their community of denial. — Christoffer

Please define what a denier is. You seem to label people as deniers if they don't believe everything that you want them to believe, or if they don't want to do everything that you want them to do.

Aren't climate activists acting through a "cult mentality"? People who are in a cult usually don't think that they are in a cult.

What if the "deniers" are actually in the majority. You would need to convince them, or bulldoze them. Bulldozing them certainly doesn't sound like democracy. And they may not go quietly. They might start disrupting traffic, throwing things over famous works of art, and gluing themselves to things.

they don't believe everything that you want them to believe — Agree-to-Disagree

Gonna be hard to get past this, with ideology. Having never once denied any piece of data put forward by Chris or Mikie, the response was to paint me as a moral monster because I didn't conclude we should upend civilisation. Its an odd position, as baker also knows.

I used to take this attitude with psychedelics and what I thought was required to save the world from "bad attitudes" hahaha

By century’s end, 183 of 195 countries, barring an influx of immigrants, will have fallen below the replacement threshold needed to maintain population levels, it said. — Agree-to-Disagree

And what is the issue with that? Populations either grow or fall, it is seldom the case that their birth rates perfectly align with mortality rates, and it can't grow forever. It is only an issue for corporatist moguls who need an ever increasing number of consumers to keep lining their pockets with cheap electronics' revenue and taxes while the Earth dies from cobalt mining — the same corporatists who want us to use paper straws.
Immigration is not a solution, because it will also come the time when the whole world's population is falling. Thus immigration is not a way to prevent populational collapse as anyone with less naivete than a 10 year old would have guessed by 2024, but simply a way to keep importing more cheap, uneducated workforce to keep working on those exploitative factories and voting on the parties that support all this.

Populations either grow or fall — Lionino

I think the problem is one illustrated, interestingly, by another two threads here currently (50 year old man...(Lounge) and Argument against Post-Modernism in Gender History (main page)).

Yes, populations grow or fall. But if we, humans, are having a net-negative(mathematically speaking) effect, this is automatically seen as a negative valence too. I also cannot see how, but the point is that if humans are causing the collapse of human populations, we should probably check that to avoid a collapse upending society entirely.

There is no such thing as 'all things being equal' here, but if we can tell the specific reason a certain trend is happening (in the related threads: lying in academic, and males in female sport) then its worth at the very least assessing, if not addressing.

I'm all for education, but we don't have time to educate people in order for them to support solutions to a damn comet on collision course with earth. In such a situation you simply ignore the ignorant and take the necessary action that is needed right now.

Of the people who are sceptical of climate change, or adopt an attitude, or conspiracy theory regarding it. Most are swayed by a political populism which spoon feeds them a populist narrative or conspiracy theory to keep them on board. Some are old and don’t want to change their lifestyle, fewer still are young and don’t want to change their lifestyle. There may be a handful of sceptics who genuinely don’t accept the science. But they will fade away soon as the climactic impacts start to be felt.

These people can be disregarded because even if they do form groups which reach positions of power and influence. The impacts of climate change will change their minds soon enough and industry is already making the required adaptations and changes to address the issue. Albeit a bit late to the game, but there was always going to be a great deal of inertia.

There may be a handful of sceptics who genuinely don’t accept the science. But they will fade away soon as the climactic impacts start to be felt. — Punshhh

Are you saying that the existence of sceptics shows that there are people who are not feeling the impacts of climatic change?

Who are you going to believe, climate scientists, or your own lying eyes?

There may be a handful of sceptics who genuinely don’t accept the science. But they will fade away soon as the climactic impacts start to be felt. — Punshhh

A handfull enough to sway politics in favor of populist leaders who keep the necessary mitigation from happening in time.

The impacts of climate change will change their minds soon enough — Punshhh

Yes, as I said, that is the scenario if we fail to do something now. Or, we do what's necessary to not let millions die.

If it is immoral to let millions die and put the world into a economical and relocation crisis of historical proportions due to inaction, would it be more immoral to take away people's voting rights if they deny that actions need to be taken? Is that a level of cost to the world worth keeping their democratic votes, or is that just a good example of why Kantian ethics aren't enough to make moral sense in all situations? I sense that such things get people's blood pumping into slippery slope scenarios of totalitarian governments, but no, it's about one thing and one thing alone; getting on the right path to avoid disaster and in a battle for the health of the world and all people, that's requires a level of martial law as it is a war against inaction. Any industry that does not have a strategy or plan to change course will lose their execs and board, any politicians who don't have a serious plan for changing a nation's course in time will be removed from power. The blame cannot be put onto the people as the people can only follow how society is structured. The only blame they can get is for who they put into power and everyone needs to be prepared for major economical turmoil as assets are relocated into solutions from the current non-solutions.

As scientists are witnessing more and more actual consequences of climate change, it is clear that the consequences are very underestimated. If this continues we actually don't know how severe it can get. An eco-system can absolutely survive, but in what state? Losing algae in the sea would produce another tipping point. And with collapses of certain groups of species it can lead to new forms of pathogens and invasive species that could cause new pandemics and a massive famine on a scale never before seen.

I don't think people really realize how delicate the balance of the world is. The economy is a good analogy for it. The most minor problem can cause extreme fluctuations of the global economical balance. The war in Ukraine and subsequent blockage of gas from Russia caused an energy crisis, which helped pushed us into a big inflationary spiral. The blockade of the Suez Canal alone was able to put the entire world into economical fragility. But it was the sum of the Ukraine war, the pandemic, the blockage, the energy crisis, the Chinese/Taiwan unrest that put the global economy into turmoil. Put into terms of the world's ecological balance and temperature, people underestimate what the change does to the planet. It's like people only think that the sea will rise and the warmest parts of the world will get slightly warmer. In Scandinavia, some people think it will be nice to grow more wine as the region gets warmer, like what the hell are they talking about? It's like people have an inability to actually extrapolate a logical overview of the consequences. If even scientists underestimate the damage, or by fear of being attacked by the idiots of society if they look like alarmists; then just imagine how bad the general population is at accurate predictions of the level of damage we face.

In my view, rip the fucking band-aid and then we can heal the world from that. It's much easier for everyone than trying to heal from a broken world.

Are you saying that the existence of sceptics shows that there are people who are not feeling the impacts of climatic change?

No, I’m accepting that there are always some people who genuinely think the science is wrong. Just like there were people who insisted the world was flat.
Having said that, I don’t remember ever meeting, or hearing of one.

that requires a level of martial law as it is a war against inaction. Any industry that does not have a strategy or plan to change course will lose their execs and board, any politicians who don't have a serious plan for changing a nation's course in time will be removed from power. — Christoffer

How many countries do you think would be willing to instigate martial law to fight climate change?

What will be done to countries which refuse to instigate martial law?

Who exactly will be in command and set the goals? (Donald Trump?)

Some civilians may not comply. Civilians in the U.S. own close to 400 million firearms and the total number of firearms owned by private citizens vastly exceeds the police and military. By comparison, the U.S. military holds about 4.5 million guns, and state and local police have just over 1 million.

What you are suggesting will probably cause more problems than climate change will?

An old one, but still relevant and in the prophetic words of Carl Sagan:

I agree with everything you say, short of “ripping the bandaid”. You and I have reached the realisation of the seriousness of the issue. It’s a road to Damascus moment for people who realise this. Unfortunately it is very difficult to explain this, or convey it to people who are just getting along with their lives, or are being lead down another road.

The number of people coming to this realisation is increasing rapidly along with the number of people who realise there is a problem that needs addressing and are ready to act. But there is an enormous inertia in the system and the culture. Many of us are banging our heads against this wall of inertia.

Eventually one realises all we can do is play our part from the position we are in within society. Ideally one would become a politician run for office and change things. Or figure out a way to change peoples minds through some kind of media organisation, or protest group. But again the inertia hits home and many people are already doing these things. In fact some of these people are pushing so hard that media campaigns are growing to discredit them as extremists and pull more people into climate denial.

So one reaches a point of acceptance, an acceptance that the crisis is enormous and irreversible and we as a species are to weak to prevent it. This is quite normal, the list of species extinctions in the fossil record is long and there is an inevitability to it.

The task of intelligent beings as I see it is to overcome these cycles and reach a point of long term survival through working with natural cycles and adopt a custodian role within the ecosystem.

It is too late now to overcome this current cycle of climate change, however if some portion of humanity can survive, adapt and preserve our intellectual and technological achievements sufficiently that they can be conveyed to the next flourishing of civilisation. There is an increased chance of achieving a that custodial role.

This is the natural cycle as I see it, with many failed attempts, collapses, until at some point in the future, the species adapts, or grows up sufficiently to overcome these obstacles and achieves a long term survival and develops into an advanced civilisation to take its place among other advanced civilisations in the cosmos, if they exist (to be confirmed). In this humanity is still in its infancy.

Personally, I will play my small part in improving our lot. While enjoying the life I have built for myself and my family.

Thanks, a true visionary.

A pity we didn’t all get on board at that point.

A slightly interesting way to envisage moving beyond the myopia of organismic or species centres identity. your daily dose of academic weirdness.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-journal-of-astrobiology/article/intelligence-as-a-planetary-scale-process/5077C784D7FAC55F96072F7A7772C5E5

Nice, next we just need to turn down the dial on greed, power games etc.

I was there 30yrs ago, but was seen as a crank.

But there is an enormous inertia in the system and the culture. Many of us are banging our heads against this wall of inertia. — Punshhh

Yes, the system itself is the problem and people rely on the system too much. For this to be fixed, we need to break the system, even if that has to be healed afterwards. The consequences of breaking its stability will be far less than that of taking too long to change course.

Eventually one realises all we can do is play our part from the position we are in within society. Ideally one would become a politician run for office and change things. Or figure out a way to change peoples minds through some kind of media organisation, or protest group. But again the inertia hits home and many people are already doing these things. In fact some of these people are pushing so hard that media campaigns are growing to discredit them as extremists and pull more people into climate denial. — Punshhh

Activists in this are just as much morons as the deniers and oil chills. It's the other extreme end featuring people who can't handle the psychological stress, so they act out in desperation rather than rationality.

But the problem is that there's no time to play along as usual. I'm serious here, the largest contributors to emissions need to be put into such pressure that they collapse as economies if they don't change course. China for instance, is the worlds largest contributor to emissions. Their economy need to be crippled to the point they accept they have to change. And so does every nation who does so globally. The global economy will crash because of this, but it has to be done as money is the only thing that moves this world. The problem is that politicians in the world do not take action, they try to eat the cake and have it to, they can't turn their backs on voters who are deniers and who don't care about climate change, so they play it down; they do the absolute minimum required by COP and COP itself only arrive at minimal conclusions that scientists are criticizing being too little each time they gather.

If people think that such breaking of the system would lead to conflicts and war, yes, it might. But imagine a world with billions of people relocated and battling for resources during famine and societies in need to rebuild their infrastructure and housing due to shifting environmental needs. What wars would that generate?

What we as regular people can do is as I said, view all people who don't take this seriously as immoral people due to them downplaying the seriousness. There's a big difference between viewing them as having the wrong opinion and seeing them as immoral. The change produces a social change. The problem is that the realm and dimension of the consequences of passive behavior isn't communicated. The seriousness of collective passiveness is downplayed. If the link between being passive or dismissive of the problems and the consequences a few decades from now are established, then it would be easier to view this passivity as being immoral and these people as being immoral.

But we are still acting like it's just an opinion, like it's a behavior that's fine. It's like in the 40s and 50s and it's fine to be a racist. It's fine to divide people by color. And at some point it's not fine anymore and if you express racist opinions or behave like that in public you'll get punched in the face and people would cheer that on. That's the level of social behavior we need to be at in order to seriously pressure politicians and the public opinion. And even then it would be hard, seen as there's plenty of politicians who still win elections with downright outspoken racism. Even today that happens, but at least that power usually can't survive long if the social ideal is to punch a racist.

So one reaches a point of acceptance, an acceptance that the crisis is enormous and irreversible and we as a species are to weak to prevent it. This is quite normal, the list of species extinctions in the fossil record is long and there is an inevitability to it. — Punshhh

We are not to weak to prevent it, we just need to do what it takes. When the pressure is on, people won't be weak, they will fight and kill for change. That's where we're heading if we're not acting now.

It is too late now to overcome this current cycle of climate change, however if some portion of humanity can survive, adapt and preserve our intellectual and technological achievements sufficiently that they can be conveyed to the next flourishing of civilisation. There is an increased chance of achieving a that custodial role. — Punshhh

Or just change course now. If that's our future and people would start to realize this to be a very likely outcome, then they will pick up guns and remove anyone who do not actively work to fix it. It's easy to ignore it now, but when enough people get the short end of the stick, they will soon organize and do something. We might see billions of them. Billions who have nothing else they can do but storm the castles of immorality.


I think the way you describe it is how many people view things, especially in places that may seem to be out of danger. But people don't realize that there is no such place. The changing climate collapse ecosystems and produce a cocktail effect of consequences, many unpredictable as we've witnessed already. This increase will more than likely happen in our lifetime. If people care for their children, then what future are they giving them? Putting blind folds on the kids, trying to soothe them into a belief that everything will be fine and then kicking them out into a world that is breaking apart?

Adults today are so inactive and passive that young teenagers have essentially given up. The depression around this subject among young people is so severe and their parents just don't seem to give a shit. It's appalling in my opinion.

And I actually don't see most people actually accepting how serious this problem is, or rather, they don't seem to accept just how serious this can become. I see most regular people as ignorant, putting on the blind folds and distracting themselves with mindless instagram reels. Essentially they have their head in the sand until the hurricane winds rip their bodies from their stuck heads. If they actually understood, they would speak more openly about it, but they don't, because it's socially awkward to do so, it's socially awkward to be angry about how things are. Changing that would make things go faster.

And one such change would be to draw a clear moral line between the active and the passive person. If the deniers and passive people are considered immoral, then people will start to express themselves much more on the matter. People will find it much less awkward to socially be outspoken about the issues. People will find it is moral to talk about solutions, to have it as a conversation starter.

People aren't talking right now, they are quiet.

How much further, how much does it take in order for regular people to stop voting for politicians who downplay the problems? How much further does it have to go in order for people to put pressure on world politics? How much further does it have to go in order for people to start talking about the issues much more openly?

I suspect that when the first bullet is fired from a guerilla or resistance group fighting for a piece of land because their own nation is uninhabitable; then people will realize just how dire the situation is. Then it would be such an illogical thing to say "go back to your own country" because they can't, and the number of people and military groups born out of such desperation will grow, and grow, and grow. And they will creep closer and closer and closer to the comfort of people's homes. Then, maybe, regular people will start to get the fucking point on how serious this thing is.

Or just change course now. If that's our future and people would start to realize this to be a very likely outcome, then they will pick up guns and remove anyone who do not actively work to fix it. It's easy to ignore it now, but when enough people get the short end of the stick, they will soon organize and do something. We might see billions of them. Billions who have nothing else they can do but storm the castles of immorality.

If it were that simple to change course, I would be out there now with my gun. But that is more likely to be counterproductive. The problem is that any breakdown in civil order would inevitably disrupt commerce and turn politics more authoritarian. Resulting in a slowing down in the development of carbon neutral technology and infra-structure and the transition and the activists who took up arms thrown in jail and labelled terrorists.

Programmes of education to educate the population in the severity and pressing nature of the threat would be effective in spreading the word. There is already lots of media aimed at achieving this. In the U.K., the work of Sir David Attenborough has been very effective and the majority of the population is on board.(to the extent of understanding the issue and prepared to act)
But really what is required is for large numbers of people to be struck with the realisation, the road to Damascus revelation, as I said. This is much more difficult and I don’t see a way of achieving this in the absence of a catastrophic natural event. Something which is likely not far off happening now.

You say we are able to make the necessary changes and prevent catastrophe. But I would say it is too late now, we should have been at our current state of readiness at the time of that Carl Sagan lecture in 1990.(I was onboard at that time). The situation is much more critical now and catastrophic effects and states collapsing will be happening soon. The best that we can do until then is keep things on a stable footing as long as possible, while nations transition to national sustainable energy generation infrastructure and make big reductions in fossil fuel usage, as has been done in China and France for example.

It looks as though the transition to carbon neutral transport is not going to be rolled out in time and may fail, with either a move back to oil, or a collapse of transport systems.

I also expect the powerful nations of the world retreating into fortresses in an attempt to survive. This would likely be in North America, Europe and China. The rest of the world would be cut loose and would have to fend for themselves. I think Putin is trying to make a move in this direction, thinking that Russia would become warmer and become an empire. (Edit. this would require the Ukraine plains for food production). This will of course fail.

The rise of fascism and libertarianism around the world is another symptom with the powerful already trying to asset strip nations, or looking to hide away in bunkers.

https://www.pml.ac.uk/News/Major-new-report-confirms-just-2°C-of-warming-will

Yes it’s going to be a rollercoaster when the AMOC circulation collapses. Rapid ice melt on Greenland could tip the balance during the next few decades. Resulting in much colder weather for Europe and global consequences. Followed by a rapid warming at a later date when it catches up with the rest of the world.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/02/new-study-suggests-the-atlantic-overturning-circulation-amoc-is-on-tipping-course/

The problem is that any breakdown in civil order would inevitably disrupt commerce and turn politics more authoritarian. — Punshhh

It's primarily industries that needs to be changed by force. Regular people will surely hate the consequences of the industry changes, but new industries will pop up that can follow the new path long before people start to vote for dictators. Like, the least they can do is to tax carbon emissions, and do it a lot. Then use the money as direct funds towards engineering solutions for mitigation.

Programmes of education to educate the population in the severity and pressing nature of the threat would be effective in spreading the word. — Punshhh

Education doesn't seem to help much for those last percentages of people who are enough to screw up elections with candidates who oppose green industries.

You say we are able to make the necessary changes and prevent catastrophe. But I would say it is too late now — Punshhh

It's too late for some consequences, but giving up would be far more catastrophic. There's no point in just stop mitigation. But we have to speed up the change and do it fast.

It looks as though the transition to carbon neutral transport is not going to be rolled out in time and may fail, with either a move back to oil, or a collapse of transport systems. — Punshhh

Moving back into oil just to see the entire world collapse is just stupid as a strategy. Just burn the oil industry (not literally). Crack down on the corrupted politicians getting money from it, do it by force if needed. Block oil entirely or partially (to have transportation for the build up of green replacements.

People buy what is on the market, so remove oil-driven products from the market. Have the governments put a ban on new gas cars earlier than we have now. If they bitch about it and try something as a blow back, put them in jail.

It's basically war against the climate change consequences and there's traitors walking about.

The rest of the world would be cut loose and would have to fend for themselves. — Punshhh

Billions against a fortress? Politicians in high places will soon enough be toppled if that would ever happen. Desperation force people into the only option they have, and getting into revolutionary mode à la France can move mountains.

I just wish people would argue for more serious push against the oil industry than has been done so far. There are just too many politicians in the pockets of the global oil industry, and the politicians who are directly owning their part of the oil industry need to be starved out of power. Like, Russia should be totally isolated. China should be totally isolated. With the only key to the door being that they stop oil. If not, they can hunger until the people storm the leader's castles.

And of course... republicans. Can we actually just conclude them to be collectively stupid? Like, what more evidence do we need?

Like, Russia should be totally isolated. China should be totally isolated. With the only key to the door being that they stop oil. If not, they can hunger until the people storm the leader's castles.

Who is in charge in this situation?


All the strategies you list will fail, resulting in martial law and authoritarian police, or military states. While the activists would be thrown in jail and vilified as extremist terrorists. Used as whipping boys for divide and rule populists. All action towards net zero will be abandoned. Carbon emissions might drop, but there would be global economic collapse. So no one will be able to develop the required technology and infra structure for a return to normality. More likely would be a Mad Max outcome. During a period of mass extinction and climate turmoil.

As I say, it’s important to retain a functioning economic and industrial system in safe areas for as long as possible. To give us a hope of pulling through as a civilisation with the appropriate technologies in place. Which are being rapidly developed now.

It's too late for some consequences, but giving up would be far more catastrophic. There's no point in just stop mitigation. But we have to speed up the change and do it fast.

This is equivocation. It is not the case that not following your prescribed actions equates to giving up.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a46678623/climate-change-sea-sponges/

And it's been done to death. How much more education do these people need? The denial group have slowly started to go into just acceptance of a changing world, but they do so in the context of not acting anyway. The outcome of their reasoning is the same as their previous pure denial. — Christoffer

Insulting and bullying people, and exaggerating the effects of climate change, does not cause most people to make major changes.

A carrot usually works better than a stick.

A carrot usually works better than a stick. — Agree-to-Disagree

Bullshit. The French revolution had much needed beheadings. Tone policing is just another form of censorship for people to adhere to the status quo. The effects of climate change are not exaggerated, in fact, they've been underestimated as is becoming painfully obvious if you would be paying attention.

A carrot usually works better than a stick. — Agree-to-Disagree

Well, donkey, unfortunately, carrots are going to be running short, and sticks too. But thistles will probably survive somewhere or other.

The French revolution had much needed beheadings. — Benkei

When does climate activism become climate terrorism?

Better sooner than later the way things are currently going. Can you give me your address for the list?