Regulation only seems to be a problem when it benefits the people who actually use the products and services of these industries and who have to face the consequences of their ineptitude, negligence, and malfeasance. Worker safety, environmental, and consumer protection regulations cost money and reduce profits so they are considered unreasonable, too restrictive. — T Clark

Government protection and services for the average - non-rich - citizen cost public money and therefore rely on taxation.

But the rich don't like paying taxes and can finds ways to avoid paying them. The non-rich can't. Owners can jack up rents and prices, cut salaries or the work force to keep profits up; the unrich have no recourse without government intervention. Corporations can move their industries and/or head offices to countries with less overhead and oversight - the workers and customers can't follow. They can finance political campaigns and lobbies to turn legislatures in their own favour - the have-nots can't, unless very large numbers of them agree on enough policy points. And since there is greater diversity of interest among the millions of ordinary citizens than among the handful of billionnaires, the pro-business party will always have more money for elections and more mass media support than their opponents.

Also, of course, governments are in control of major infrastructure, law enforcement, the mint, transportation, foreign trade, diplomacy and defence, all of which are needed by business, commerce and the financial sector. All of these things cost public money, which has to be collected in the form of taxes and user fees. Whereas the ultra rich are able to evade the bulk of taxation, the middle class is burdened with it - but the owner class benefits directly in the form of lucrative government contracts, while the salaries of executives and shop foremen, tradesmen and researchers are not raised along with the profits.

Without adequate regulation, more and more wealth gravitates upward to the least productive members of society, who increasingly grow richer through venture capital and speculation rather than through customer service and quality product. This imbalance continues to keep tipping in the same direction, until the whole edifice collapses in a depression. At this point, the conservative factions withdraw from the political arena to begin healing, while the liberal ones are left to repair the damage. This latter being a long and difficult endeavour commensurate with the extent of the damage, it gives the conservative faction sufficient time to recruit new allies: nationalists, religious blocs, interest groups that have some axe to grind against some portion of their fellow citizens.

Once the owner class is firmly back in the saddle, they begin deregulating industry, dismantling measures that protect the consumer, knocking over trade unions, militarizing police forces, giving themselves subsidies and tax breaks....

I vote for what I want government to do at a given time. — Vera Mont

Does this entail telling others how to live their lives or what they can and can't say, or what they can spend their money on or not? — Harry Hindu

Why would you assume that. It often entails changes in foreign relations, or public health, indigenous housing, environmental protection, elder care, energy distribution, education - issues far bigger than telling anybody how to live (so long as they don't harm others) or what to say (so long as they're not harming others with lies and abuse) or how they spend their money, (so long as they're not harming anybody.)

You sound just like a Rep. Reps say the same thing. — Harry Hindu

No, I don't. Seems like, whatever anyone says, you just keep hearing the same refrain.

Abolish political parties. Abolish group-think and group-hate. — Harry Hindu

Sorry. Not within my purview. Never mind; Trump will abolish parties, elections, every kind of speech, hate and thought that's not in line with his - on any given day.

You're saying you do your research into candidates but don't understand their differences? — Harry Hindu

Why would I have meant that???? Different voters have different priorities; I know what mine are. If all of the available candidates have a clean record, and are true to their party platforms, I really don't care about their home life, how they dress or what they eat. I vote for what I want government to do at a given time. Liberetartian twits are not on my radar, any more than religious nuts.

I vote party line Democrat. I’ll never vote for a Republican. Voting for third-party candidates is voting for Republicans. — T Clark
Sounds like someone who lets others do their thinking for them. — Harry Hindu

Or he's been paying attention to the results of previous elections, as I have.

Why do you think the left lost in the recent U.S. election? — Harry Hindu

I know of a dozen reasons, that have roots in the recent and distant past, but I will not discuss them here, for lack of sufficient space and time. In brief: fear and loathing beat out joy and optimism. A considerable amount of Repub cheating didn't help.

I think the Romans left conquered cultures intact. — frank

Except for introducing christification.

Neo-liberalism is the dominant form of right-wing liberalism after about 1980. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Neither 'neoliberalism' - whatever that actually is, if it is - nor right-wing have anything to do with liberal ideas or ideals or politics.

Just don't conflate the "left" with "liberal". — Harry Hindu

I wish that distinction were made clearly enough in a dictionary and in political parlance for everyone to understand the same meanings.

The point being that people that do their research actually vote for candidates, not parties — Harry Hindu

Or policies, maybe? Or one particular issue? Or a leader they prefer as head of their government? Or some other aspect of candidate and/or party that is meaningful to that voter?

T Clark votes for party. When you do that you don't bother doing research. — Harry Hindu

I don't believe you know his motivations, his experience or what research he's done.

You don't bother questioning your group when the majority (the more moderate Dems) allow the actions of a few (the extremists (socialists/communists that are trying to erase diversity, not promote it) — Harry Hindu

That's not what I'm seeing in US politics currently.

(With that said, it seems to me that the folks who say that something like capitalism is not attached to liberalism simply lack historical and political knowledge, and are therefore unqualified to really weigh in on this sort of question.) — Leontiskos

Or is liberalism attached to capitalism? As for lacking historical knowledge, we are all disqualified, being ignorant of or at least hazy on some periods and geographical areas that make up human history.
For that matter, capitalism hasn't been all that clearly defined, either. Is it a self-contained socio-economic system, an economic arrangement, a political stance, a philosophy, a religion, or one aspect of social organization that can exist under different forms of government? Is it attached exclusively with liberalism, conservatism, 'neoliberalism' or socialism, or has it been associated with all of those?

You pick at what you think you disagree with or where you think there's no alternative as if it invalidates the critique. Do you want a combative discussion or do you want to understand what I'm trying to relay? — Benkei

I don't want to be combative; I just don't understand what you're trying to say. At least, I have some grasp of a hint at a theory, but I don't understand how it translates to practical action, or who is expected to do what.

Once power consolidates it can only react to discrete violations but it does not allow redistributing power that enables such violations in the first place. — Benkei

This is what I don't understand. Where in history is this 'first place' in which power had not yet consolidated? The only such instances I can think of are 'primitive' - that is, tribal - societies that consisted of a small number of closely related people. The minute one of these tribes was conquered by a larger, more aggressive nation, those people found themselves under a consolidated power system the beneficiaries of which were not inclined to redistribute anything.
They had the options of submission, revolt, escape or - in some cases - being assimilated. The latter instance is, I believe, where liberalism begins: as a reaction to consolidated power that is unjust to some segment(s) of its populace.

Individualism resists, for instance, redistributive justice. Once power consolidates it can only react to discrete violations but it does not allow redistributing power that enables such violations in the first place. It does not enforce democratic decision making where it matters most in capitalist society because it is stuck in a formal conception of justice. I mean top-down led companies, the economic system that favours capital over labour and gives little to no choice to the latter. I mean externalising everything and having no tools unless rights are violated. — Benkei

I see this as quite distinctly conservative, rather than liberal. I suppose that's the part I don't understand, because we have such varied definitions and descriptions. Perhaps it's that pernicious misnomer 'neoliberalism' at fault?

Democritising all socio-economic human activity and decentralising decision making are conceptually the easiest paths forward. What is shared decision making if not a preventative measure to avoid one or a few voices drown out others? What is shared ownership if not a preventative measure to avoid one or a few own most of everything? Sharing is caring! — Benkei

I totally agree. And can't see any way from here to there, let alone an easy one. Two ways have been attempted in my lifetime: revolution and incremental change. I've seen the latter have some gratifying successes (now being shattered spectacularly) and the former achieve results the exact opposite of what was intended.

Something tells me you wouldn't know who to vote for if they didn't have a D next to their name. — Harry Hindu

Then Something is mistaken. I have a choice of voting L, ND or G. Though none fulfill all of my requirements, I choose the one that comes closest at any given election cycle and hope their parties can form at least a temporary alliance in the face of regressive threats. I do inform myself and I always vote, even if the odious C candidate is a dead cert in my riding.

Conservatives complain of discrimination against them when they encounter social disapproval of their views. Liberals complain of being jailed, fired or censored for theirs. Which is the 'snowflake' and which the hypocrite?

But my concern is whether liberalism has the conceptual tools to address systemic and structural power before harm is framed as a rights violation. It does not. — Benkei

What does?

Did I say anything about prediction? No. — Benkei

You said

What’s missing is a vocabulary for preventative, collective responsibility; a way to interrogate power before it consolidates, and beyond the frame of discrete violations. — Benkei

Who does this interrogation of whom before what power can consolidate, and how, without prediction, can anyone - everyone? - do this? Attempts have been made, based on warning signs and predictions but the collective responsibility was unresponsive. Liberalism fails because it lacks the vocabulary of fear and loathing.

I wouldn't expect any different from an extreme leftist. When you're so far to the left, everyone else is right. — Harry Hindu

The current US Democrats are what you consider far left? In that case, I'm so far left I'm beneath your horizon. No, not in an ism, and not on the basis of any big-name thinker's recommendation; simply through observation of how we humans screw up our lives, our communities and our world.

The independent moderates outnumber the Dems and Reps and the numbers are growing. The moderate middle is the group that decides elections. — Harry Hindu

Not anymore. They're being relentlessly stripped of their voting rights, and such votes as they have, are discounted more at each election cycle. This erosion of democracy has been going on steadily in half the country for over a century and a half. It was retarded for a couple of decades in the mid-20th, but has accelerated in the 21st and under the current ministration, is in existential crisis.

When one party goes to far to one side the pendulum swings back to the other side with just as much force. — Harry Hindu

It swing right very fast and lands with a bang, left very slowly and lands with a soft thump. (In my experience, anyway)

If we want to tamper the level of divisiveness and tribalism we see today we really need to abolish political parties. — Harry Hindu

We??? Good luck! I really don't relish the idea of being invaded by His Magasty's army of deplorables.

I wouldn't give up hope yet. — Harry Hindu

If you're young, I don't suppose you can afford to.

You're right. The liberal idea has no meaning in the modern world. We're in disarray, fighting a doomed rearguard action. Evil will always win, because it's not hampered by ethics, shame or compassion.

Dictatorship — frank

The dictatorship of a capitalist, even better!

Therefore, free enterprise is not capitalistic — Leontiskos

Therefore the support of free enterprise is not necessarily the support of capitalism.

#2 is the sort of slogan I might find on a bumper sticker. — Leontiskos

You might. Is it therefore not factual?
Never mind: the words don't really mean anything.

It doesn't say "enterprise," it says "free enterprise" (i.e. a form or aspect of capitalism). Your own definition disagrees with you, and you fudged it by omitting the word "free." — Leontiskos

I left it out of the postscript. Enterprise can be free without exploitation; enterprise can be free without relying on debt: value for value rather than profit and loss. Capitalism absolutely requires debt and exploitation. Capitalist economies allow freedom for a few by constraining many. Their governments protect the public precisely to the degree to which those governments are liberal.
A slogan is not a fact.

Seems there are as many definitions and descriptions of liberalism, liberal ideals, policy, governance and activism as there are people to do the describing. Nor do we all read the same history books, attribute the same features of a modern society to the same formative processes, or the same characteristics to a person identified as liberal.

This makes identification of the issues difficult and agreeing on alternatives impossible.

A poignant illustration of the way in which popular Darwinism has given us something to live down to. — Wayfarer

From where? Have all of Jesus' sheep been adequately fed? Are they all safe and warm? Once that's done, you can live up to the next thing.

But the deeper values implicit in liberalism—respect, consent, reciprocity—were originally grounded in religious and philosophical traditions, specifically Christian in nature. — Wayfarer

Where?
Anyway, Christianity is a latecomer in civilization. Very little in it is original. Previous organized religions were based on hierarchy and obedience. So was Christianity, once the pesky Radical had been killed and mythologized and the hierarchy of priests and kings (by divine right) organized it.

That’s not to dismiss the achievements of liberal modernity. But it does raise the question: what moral or metaphysical commitments must underlie a free and humane society, if it is to remain coherent and whole? — Wayfarer

Nothing metaphysical is required. What do social animals need? How can a society of animals get the maximum portion of what they need with a minimum of suffering? The moral commitment is the same as in Christianity: Do onto others as you would have them do onto you, and communism: To each according to need from each according to ability. Neither can be achieved, or even approached, in the overpopulated, god-ridden, money-driven, propagandized societies of today. All liberals can do is attempt to mitigate the worst outcomes. In some countries they do fairly well; in others, they fail, get knocked on their keesters, get up and try again. And again, and again....

Very probably. It's a vast, vague, fraught subject.
I wasn't trying to say anything more than this observation:
In the historical sense, both profit-commerce and liberal ideas have been around since the dawn of civilization, so it's hardly surprising that both accompanied the British (French, Spanish and Portuguese) colonists to the Americas. By the the time Rousseau was expounding on the rights of man, colonialism, white supremacy and the privilege of the owner class was deeply embedded in western culture. (not so much in Native cultures - but they were not 'civilized') Liberal ideals were expressed but not enshrined in the constitution: they crept in, one by one, as amendments - against stiff opposition. The rift between conservative and liberal factions was inescapable from the first European ship landing.

I apologize. If it seems that way, my feeble attempt to present a bigger context was inadequate.

I don't think the answer is found in a dicitionary but a history book. Liberalism and capitalism developed in tandem and share core assumption about the individual, property and greedom — Benkei

In tandem from 4000BC Sumeria onward? If that's the case, no wonder we don't have a firm definition for the idea we're arguing about!
Historically, every conceivable form of governance and all of their opposing counterparts have been in effect somewhere for some period of time, alongside every conceivable economic and social organization. So, yes, human ideas exist in tandem, in time.
What, precisely are these [correct/myopic/misguided/duplicitous/ridiculous/laudable/damnable] core assumptions?

To Vera's point, if freedom is a good, and "the people" turn on it for lesser goods, or out of sheer ignorance, then, on this older view, they were never free to begin with. If freedom isn't a superior good, then so much the worse for liberalism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The fact that some philosophers declare people unfree for various reasons does not invalidate the good intentions of liberals who attempt to lessen the misery of those who don't know how to or are not allowed to choose what's good for them. That's not about consumption, that's about social justice.

Certain kinds of freedom are harmful to the individual and society. The constraints and punitive repression of theocracy don't replace harmful freedom with good, it simply makes the lack of choice less unpalatable with false promises.

In any case, you can't engage in a discussion --- unless, that is, you are trying to be positively disrespectful --- using appeals to dictionary definitions. — Jamal

No, it wasn't disrespect, it was a desire for a clear idea what is being discussed under this wide, blurry heading. If there is no definition other than what American politicians hammered out, then I can't engage.

If liberalism creates citizens who are so easily manipulated, who are so ignorant, then doesn't this directly impugn its claims to empower freedom? For, ignorance can easily be seen as a limit on freedom. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No ism creates citizens. Citizens are first human beings: individually quite sensible and reasonably co-operative, collectively gullible and manipulable and always potentially both altruistic and vicious. The very same kind of people who were persuaded to capital, to industrialization, to Islam, to monarchy; by every exploiter and war-monger who ever sent them to kill and enslave one another, to suffer and die in heaps, and lately to upend a civilization that had been working fairly well for most of a century.

Unfortunately, unlike theocracy and autrocarcy that allow for no original ideas, personal freedom or opposition, liberalism lets humans be as good and bad, as smart or stupid as they choose to be and live with the consequences of their collective choice. Once they've bollixed it up good and proper, they blame a vaguely defined system, declare it 'broken and demand that Somebody fix it for them.
Hence the Jesus-shaped hole.

nd the essence of liberalism is to justify capitalism with the ideology of equality, individual liberty and property rights.

And not only to justify capitalism, but to justify colonialism, slavery, and class hierarchy. This is described pretty well in Domenico Losurdo's Liberalism: A Counter-History, although he goes too far for my liking --- unlike him (as I recall) I do think there is a lot of good in liberalism. — Jamal

I must be using the wrong dictionary. Oxford has the meaning as

1.willingness to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas,
- the holding of political views that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
- the belief that many traditional beliefs are dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.

2. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

Not a word about colonialism or slavery, class hierarchy or capital, unlewss all enterprise is capitalistic. However, once all of those conditions have prevailed for a few centuries, there is no way to establish a brand new social structure except to tear the old one down - with all the death, destruction and lasting bitterness that entails. (And maybe end up with the travesty into which communism slid.) All a liberal can do is introduce small, incremental easements - against fierce resistance from the deeply vested powerful interest groups.

Liberalism is failing, — Leontiskos

It's not failing; it's being beaten down by more aggressive forces. This is because liberalism can thrive only so long in a capitalist society. The essence of capitalism is the haves using up the have-nots and keeping them have-nots as long as they're useful. The only time there is any redistribution of resources, opportunity, wealth and power is a short period following a major breakdown in the capitalist system: recession, depression or war. As the grabbers and users recover, they claw back more and more of everything. They also control the organs of propaganda to stoke dissatisfaction and displace their own wrongdoing onto convenient targets, thus turning gullible people against their neighbours as well as their own self-interest.

I think it is now important to have proper alternatives so that we don't fall into something worse.

We have already fallen into something much, much worse. What do you propose as a 'proper' alternative?

I am interested in if there are any good reasons whatsoever. — Bob Ross

None.
Theology is a systemmization and apologetics for religion. Some theologian always finds an excuse for whatever injustices and cruelties his religion espouses, from slavery to ritual slaughter.
God gave Job the most succinct answer: "Because I can."

The problem I see here is demanding sense or reason from religion.

This thread is an attempt at exploring, with the community, whether it is just for God to punish such sins eternally or not. — Bob Ross

Of course it isn't. Very little of the bible has even a remote connection to justice as we perceive it.
God's original sin was inventing the very concept of sin. Eve's sin - the original sin - was wanting to know the difference between good and evil. Before they ate of the apple, Adam and Eve were ignorant and amoral, unaware that there is a distinction between right and wrong. So how could they sin?
They were punished simply for disobedience and we all are punished for the curiosity with which our species was imbued by its maker - that is, for being the creature God created. (And we, in our various religious zealotries, have continued to punsh memebrs of our species for being as our God made them).
So, how does one escape the tremendous burden of sin one has not actually committed? By murdering a man who did nobody any harm, because he was brought into existence for the purpose of being the only sacrifice God considered worthy to mollify Himself. Then the people who carried out the necessary ritual killing are punished by other God-fearing people for that God-demanded act.
Does any of that sound as if the author were interested in what's fair and proportionate?
It's not about right and wrong; it's about power.
It's more important to be a rule-enforcing, righteous, God-fearing man than a humble follower of Christ, loving his neighbour.

It has merits over the present American system - but that's not been working well for some time now, due to politics, systemic prejudice and money. Compared to other adversarial systems, it still has merits.
Seems to me a little too slow and unwieldy.
You could look into Native American procedures to address wrongdoing by a member of the community: Their approach was restorative rather than punitive justice.

I think survival is more a practical question. We won't - can't - all survive.
What ought we to do collectively?
That's kind of philosophical, but also practical . We pretty much all know what should be done, needs to be done, by governments and global organizations. We also know that many of the former won't and that the latter will try despite of the governments.
What ought individual citizens do? That's also an ethical question. And we all pretty much know the answer and also that most people are more frightened of their governments than they are of climate change and won't be desperate enough until it's too late (if it isn't already).
So, we know that the climate has changed and will continue to change for the worse.
All that remains is the practical consideration of escape, self-protection and local mitigation. The very rich can escape, for a short time. Many people in prosperous nations can devise some degree of self-protection. Some communities and a few fortunate nations can enact mitigating measures - at least until they are overrun by climate refugees or involved in the ensuing climate wars.
I believe we are nearing the end of philosophy as well as professional baseball, psychiatry and haute cuisine.

I don't think that is a discussion for this thread. — Athena

Are you sure? The subject of this thread is the writing of philosophical essay.
Maybe you can write one on what the problem with philosophy is.

Did you know about that? — Agree-to-Disagree

Yes.

Have you learnt anything?

No.
Can you show the relevance of groundwater to the ability of tundra to grow food crops?
Can you show the relevance of 200-year-old forest fires to our present desperate need to capture carbon, rather than emit more carbon?
Or, really, any relevance to climate change at all?
No, climate change is not good news for anybody.

https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/environment/climate-change/climate-change-impacts-agriculture

The comment had been made that there will be less arable land. Surely it's appropriate to talk about what the science behind that says? Or is that approach not in keeping with the spirit of the OP? — frank

Yes, and it has been talked about. Need more?
https://futurism.com/the-byte/climate-change-drying-rivers
https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-agriculture-and-food-supply
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0013935120315966
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2022/november/shifting-frontiers-mapping-africas-agricultural-land-under-a-future-climate
The great green wall project to hold back the Sahara was going quite well... until Trump.

Russia and Canada are not improving, either.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/climate-change-will-reshape-russia
https://press.un.org/en/2019/gaef3519.doc.htm

OK?

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2025/01/environment-and-climate-change-canadas-climate-forecasting-system-highlights-concerning-global-warming-trends.html
https://indigenousclimatehub.ca/effect-of-climate-change-on-landscapes/
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.4558
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/understanding-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-sub-arctic-groundwater/
https://www.caryinstitute.org/news-insights/media-coverage/ancient-subarctic-forests-risk-climate-change-and-war
FFS, learn how it works!

Disagree;980870"]What are your science credentials?[/quote]
It's not a question of credentials, but one of finding factual information and reliable predictions.
It's not that hard. Give it a try.

One of the consequences of Climate Change is that there will be less deaths due to cold. — Agree-to-Disagree

Balderdash! There will be more deaths due to cold, heat, wind, water, snow, ice, droughts, hurricanes, famines and wars.

Or are we only allowed to talk about the negative consequences of Climate Change? — Agree-to-Disagree

You are allowed to talk about anything you can back up with evidence. AFAIK, there no positive consequences. The one(s) you referred to so far are bogus.

As the temperature increases with climate change the forested subarctic region which surrounds the tundral will shift north into the Arctic tundra. The grasslands and temperate forests which are south of the forested subarctic region will expand into where the forested subarctic region is now. It is the new grassland areas which can be farmed. — Agree-to-Disagree

That'sstill not how it works. Learn the science.

Things you can do for yourself and family:
Make sure you have enough necessities - clothing, bedding, hygiene products, non-perishable staple foods, including dry pet food if applicable (there won't be much for dogs and cats to hunt, after) batteries (better yet, get a radio, flashlight and tools that don't require batteries).
Change your diet. Become accustomed to canned meat or no meat. (The latter is also a service to the planet)*
Plant a garden and indoor hydroponics if you have any space in which to do it; if not, join a communal garden.
Insulate your home to the nighest standard possible.
Install whatever power generation device you can afford and accommodate.
Do not have a baby. Teach older children basic survival skills.
Get whatever dental and preventive medical work you can afford.
Lay in the largest possible supply of needed medications (may be difficult under regulations) and OTC supplements.
Build a library (non electronic) of how-to books.
Always have a go-bag ready for each member of the family.

* for the planet: stop using superfluous appliances. Get [url=http://hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9220103&hvtargid=pla-306572288073&gad_source=1&th=1]a meter[/url] to find out how much power appliances are drawing when not in use (a lot!) and get power bars with off-switches to turn them off. Replace greedy appliances with more energy-efficient ones when you get a chance. Use all of them less.
Change your diet. Less meat, more locally sourced food.
Stop buying heavily plasticed frivolities and overpackaged foods.
Support local business rather than multinationals.
Reuse, recycle and compost.
Learn to repair and preserve things instead of throwing away and replacing them.
Stop feeding and mowing your lawn: plant edible herbs instead.
Drive less; get bicycles for your family; walk. Fly never if it's at all avoidable, and for heaven's sake don't go on ocean cruises.

I'm sure you can think of more.

The thing is: this is not a what-if threat, but a how-soon one. Climate change is very real and happening all around us, totally oblivious of and indifferent to denials.

I have posted before about how cold kills many more people than heat. — Agree-to-Disagree

Oh, that's changing all the time. But there will be more deaths from cold, heat, water, wind, ice and snow.

There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show. — Agree-to-Disagree

Canada is not the British Isles. and 2024 is not 1988.

If you want to minimise the number of people that die from temperature related deaths then you should welcome a little warming. — Agree-to-Disagree

That's still not how it works.

There is very little you can do about the situation through the political process in today's *ahem* climate.
While a few states have sound policies, most are poorly prepared and who knows what will happen to funding in the near future. Europe has done much better and china seems to be working on the problem. You can certainly find out what projects are underway or in effect where you live.
Think, also on the community and personal level.

Try to ensure your energy production, with solar panels, wind generators, geothermal, hydro or wave action equipment. Some Native communities have a head start on this. Make sure all buildings are fitted or retrofitted with the best possible insulation. Earth sheltered is best, BTW. Every neighbourhood should have a space large enough and robust enough for an emergency shelter, with food and water supplies laid in for the entire community far several days, at least a backup generator and communications device of some kind. Hold drills.
Get to know your neighbours and find out what skills are available: co-peration saves lives. Organize teams to look after the most vulnerable in case of flood, fire, extreme wind and heat. Set up local hydroponic and community gardens for fresh produce. (There will be more frequent interruptions to the supply chain, as well as rising prices.) Preserve as much fruit and vegetable as possible for lean times and establish a central food bank for staples. Train community members in essential health services and acquire sufficient medical supplies for an extended period.

Personal considerations to follow.

what are the likely consequences for the human world and the wider environment, — Moliere

We are already seeing many of the effects, which will intensify and accelerate due to feedback loops. Wildfires wipe out vast swathes of forest, which not only diminishes the carbon capturing capability of vegetation, but contributes to airborne particulates and gases. The oceans and great lakes are already growing warmer; in the salt water, this means changed migration patterns of sea-life; in fresh water, lower levels and increased algae bloom. The melting of polar ice will eradicate some species and the melting of permafrost is creating sinkholes that emit even more methane. And ancient bacteria and viruses for which we are unprepared. The glaciers are disappearing, which means so do the rivers they feed. Water shortages follow.

The summers, even in northern latitudes, are increasingly hot, such that people in cities are dying of heatstroke if they can't get to a shelter. Those who have AC are a huge drain on the power supply, which can cause local hydro outages, alongside those caused by turbulent storms in every season. We're already seeing more frequent and deadly tornadoes, blizzards, ice storms, hurricanes and rainstorms. Changing wind patterns make forecasting difficult, drive sudden rises and plunges in temperature and shift the movement of clouds, which results in unprecedented droughts and floods. All of the foregoing affect crops around the world, with consequent shortages in staple foods (don't expect cheap coffee or cocoa anymore), killing livestock and hindering remedial efforts. Destroyed infrastructure cost vast amounts of resources to replace.

TBC with mitigation ideas.

If I do write an essay for this, I think, it may be hard to formulate this topic into a clear philosophy argument, — Jack Cummins

Tentative suggestion: start with the Social Contract. That concept is not hard to defend in an essay, but horrifically hard to defend on the actual ground. (I briefly considered making it my subject, but set it free again as I didn't have a context in which to frame it. I think maybe you do.)

I'm back from doing necessary tasks, several of which gave me a low-level pleasure in the completion. I read the links and remain unsatisfied. Absence of pain, irritation, frustration, or whatever is not enough. Some of the greatest pleasures I experience are freebies: frog-song on a spring evening, a good joke, the scent of cilantro on my hands, a few strains of Beethoven accidentally heard through a window, the tender mauve light of early morning, the trusting paw offered by a dog - these pleasures are extras, above the absence of pain and frustration.

Equanimity and tranquillity are fine, contentment is better, but happiness is achieved when those little pleasures are added to contentment. That may well be just a bunch of chemicals telling one another stories, but I don't think they can be artificially induced - at least, not yet - because the one missing component is being there: the conscious awareness of one's fortunate condition and the commitment to support its various components.
From the little I know of Epicurus, he knew this, too.

I don't follow you, Vera. I referred to pleasure as a concept, not particular instances or "experiences" (and "accessed via drugs" has nothing to do with Epicurus – check the three links I provided for clarification in the context of my response). — 180 Proof

I'll do that when I have a little more time.

In this thread my references to pleasure were in response to this

AI will solve the purpose of human existence and he lists some things like of pleasure is the goal then we’d just be hooked up to drugs all the time without needing to bother with experiences. That sounds like either ruining the human experience or “revealing” it for what it is, that being just chemical reactions with our storytelling to make it seem like more. — Darkneos

and the cartoon-laden quora post which he can't argue.