There are various levels of climate optimism. E.g., From most to least optimistic.
Being rich & truly believing that climate change is a ridiculous belief & God will make them see the light eventually (i.e., oh happy days & rejoice the cumming of the lord!)
Being rich, knowing that climate change needs dealing with, but, the clever tech guys have it sorted.
Being rich, knowing that climate change will be a disaster, but, what the hell, right now I am rich.
Not related to money. Being concerned about climate change, but not relatively that informed about the science (e.g., ecology). Truly believing that the industries & politicians are dealing with the problems (because they say they’re)
Being concerned & informed of the evidence. Understanding the general problems such as greenwashing governments & industries (AKA corruption). But, thinking that the effects of climate change will make people see sense.
Or… realizing that it’s possible to limit the damage and taking action to make that happen. It’s pretty clear that the article recognizes that it’s possible.
It’s actually as possible as - the majority of people understanding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (AKA not burning fossil fuels, not eating meat - NOT greenwashed) & wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in a democracy, that should do the “trick”)
One person could only choose to reduce a tiny fraction of their direct or indirect greenhouse gases. Billions could choose to reduce a massive amount of greenhouse gases.
It’s as “easy” as informed cooperation & will. But
@silence7 @Codilingus
There are various levels of climate optimism. E.g., From most to least optimistic.
Being rich & truly believing that climate change is a ridiculous belief & God will make them see the light eventually (i.e., oh happy days & rejoice the cumming of the lord!)
Being rich, knowing that climate change needs dealing with, but, the clever tech guys have it sorted.
Being rich, knowing that climate change will be a disaster, but, what the hell, right now I am rich.
@silence7 @Codilingus
Not related to money. Being concerned about climate change, but not relatively that informed about the science (e.g., ecology). Truly believing that the industries & politicians are dealing with the problems (because they say they’re)
Being concerned & informed of the evidence. Understanding the general problems such as greenwashing governments & industries (AKA corruption). But, thinking that the effects of climate change will make people see sense.
Doom!
Or… realizing that it’s possible to limit the damage and taking action to make that happen. It’s pretty clear that the article recognizes that it’s possible.
@silence7
It’s actually as possible as - the majority of people understanding how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (AKA not burning fossil fuels, not eating meat - NOT greenwashed) & wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (in a democracy, that should do the “trick”)
One person could only choose to reduce a tiny fraction of their direct or indirect greenhouse gases. Billions could choose to reduce a massive amount of greenhouse gases.
It’s as “easy” as informed cooperation & will. But