> I assume you mean "out of countries that are actually in a position to do something about it"...The evidence is pretty hard to ignore though - nobody who can really do anything about it is going to give a shit until it's all too late.
Yes, one of our founders is an anthropologist and she has been doing field work in underrepresented communities. Rich countries (think they) can afford to pretend there's no such thing as climate change but nobody outside these wealthy enclaves has any doubt.
The reason we spend effort on this is that the atmosphere touches everyone, so we should try to figure out the interests and concerns of as many people as possible to make sure we do our best to do things that help everyone.
It's interesting that the biggest opponents of climate repair seem to come from Germany, USA, UK, and Canada.
> OTOH I'm not that convinced northern Europe gives a shit about it, given how much oil/gas Norway is drilling and how reluctant Germany has been to reduce its fossil fuel dependence (and now geo-politics has forced its hand on oil, it's ramping up coal usage again!).
Yes, it's frustrating that in the face of a war the convo switches immediately back to "drill" rather than "windmill". A big part of that is that corporations speak in terms of benefits, and tailor their messages to specific customer groups (this topic is probably 15% of HN posts and comments) while the conversations of governments and NGOs focus on features and risks.
But I do think it's a top of mind issue in europe, and the continued expansion of the scope of the ETS is a good example. See a long reply I wrote to "tito" to see why there's a complex combination of repairs and continued damage that is unavoidable (point 1 in my comment)
But one way or another it's the OECD who'll have to pay for the cleanup.