So I actually don't think the "doom and gloom" is causing people not to act, if anything the younger generation are acting on that message. (Fridays for Future, etc.) Instead what is delaying action, in my mind, is that the West's middle class is disappearing and now with climate change demanding a further reduction of consumption it is casuing people to try to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle.
If any proposed solution (to climate change or anything else) relies on huge numbers of people not exhibiting pure selfishness, then it's not a solution but wishful thinking disconnected from reality. We have a good idea on how large groups of homo sapiens function. Selfishness is unavoidable. There will be lots of great unselfish, heroic, altruistic exceptions, but the mass behavior will still be overwhelmingly selfish in aggregate.
People trying "to hold on tighter to their already disappearing lifestyle" is a very important factor that needs to be taken into account for any calls to action. This is what's happening already and this will be happening - and I'm not pointing out this as something that "needs" to change; it kind of does, but it doesn't matter if it "needs" to change because it will not change, I'm pointing it out as something that's inevitable, people will try to hold on tight to unsustainable lifestyles (and fight to gain unsustainable lifestyles that they never had but others did) and any proposed solution needs to work despite that trend in order to be plausible and feasible.
This is what concerns me, calls to action that require our better nature to override our immediate self-interest require thoughtful and inspired leadership.
We have a real leadership vacuum right now: Boris and Donald, lightweight leaders in many countries (my own country, Canada, included), rise of Dictators and Fascists. We are not solving this problem with this team.
As the effects of climate change become apparent and causes economic strain either due to attempts to prevent climate change or the consequences of not preventing it, well, in times like these that's the exact type of team that people will vote for.
And even more, as the global 'tragedy of commons' scenario of splitting the burden of mitigating climate change becomes even harsher, and the very unequal burden of consequences of climate change strains relationships, we should expect that agressive nationalistic movements will become even more popular both in developed and developing countries. In short, we'll have a situation that has many parallels with the worst aspects of the 1930s and the type of autocratic leaders that people in so many countries worldwide chose back then.
Is there any data on the spread of average vs median? From my personal experience, it seems that there are two peaks: one group of people are consuming far above the average while another is far below it (e.g. some travel by plane internationally or intercontinentally two or three times a year, others maybe once every three or five years). If you nag those below the average how they need to stop over-consuming, you'll likely yield nothing but confusion that might turn to anger and fundamental opposition if you continue.
What are you doing to deal with the sun expanding and consuming the Earth?
>If you live in the West, then you are likely over consuming.
What a weird normative statement for something where there is no agreed upon bar. What is an acceptable amount of "consuming" in your mind? Does it align with a poor rural Chinese resident's view?
I keep trying to focus on the fact the process is already starting now and WILL affect them in their lifetimes ... hurricanes, fires, wierd storms, droughts ...
How are we? We breathe cleaner air and use more petroleum than 1970.
I will be 55 in 2050, and I bet my entire fortune that the world will be better then.
Just because you can pick two things from the past that didn't turn out as expected doesn't mean the next potential danger isn't valid. Now, maybe we come up with some clever CO2 scrubbing technology and we start engineering the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean the danger doesn't need to be addressed. There was a lot of work that went into finding new ways to get oil and regulation to improve the air. Without acknowledging the problem we could have had those catastrophes.
Let natural selection do its job.
Correct, perhaps those issuing the warnings should accept the unfortunate reality that this is how average people behave and adjust their messaging. Rather than repetitive warning after warning, why not pool resources and focus on building and improving one single large educational resource that tells the whole story (including full disclosure of the uncertain and imperfect aspects, rather than having people learn of those in conspiracy forums, in order to build trust) from a variety of angles so it is approachable by people from all different intelligence and economic levels?
More of the same isn't going to work.
The layman listening to how this is covered could very easily come to the exact opposite conclusion ("97% of scientists....!!"), and much of the armchair experts seem to behave as if there was.
But this is my point: why isn't there something akin to a centralized Science Propaganda Council where the very best science on the matter is agreed upon by the experts, and open to criticism by those who disagree? Isn't this how any large project would be organized (well, the "central" part of it if not the openness to criticism)? Does having a bunch of splintered groups arguing inconsistent viewpoints seem like the optimal approach to something that may very well be an existential threat to life as we know it on the planet?
> Scientists publish studies and sometimes strongly worded letters; journalists and authors pick it up and twist into something that (then) sells publications / (now) attracts eyeballs to advertisements; people mishear these reports further, freak out and tell to each other (or, today, post on social media).
Bingo. And intelligent people sincerely wonder why this isn't having success. The situation is so utterly absurd to me, it boggles my mind that no one else seems to notice any imperfections in our current approach (and this applies to all the issues facing the world, not just this one).
I personally hope that the world will be better in in 2050, but the only way for that to come true is in my eyes very systematic action to go reneweable across the bord.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-...