It seems that certain groups would rather literally see the world burn than admit they were wrong and have to do something about it.

If we can't get the entire population to stay at home and wear masks to protect themselves against a global pandemic, how the heck are we supposed to get them to stay at home and wear masks to protect themselves against climate change?

Good question. I know people who never had any problems trusting medication and vaccines, but then with COVID they suddenly parroted the idea that masks and vaccines don't work. A few days ago a friend said the famous line that "Ukraine was invented in the 20th century to damage Russia, they're actually Russians". I tried to tell him the story of how Kievan Rus' came to be from a Norse people to a primarily Slavic state, and how modern Russia isn't the same thing as medieval Rus', but he cut me off mid sentence and said that he knows that story and doesn't believe it.

You literally can't say anything to that. With every conspiracy theory, you can say, show and prove whatever you want, but you will always be defeated by the answer: "I don't believe that", and you can't argue belief away with facts. Also the same people who said that the Earth isn't getting warmer are now saying that it's due to natural cycles where the Earth is closer to the Sun.

What I'm trying to say is that a lot of people take these things (global warming, covid, war in Ukraine, the EU, NATO...) personally and emotionally, not on a factual basis. Hell, some people deny that we had an air pollution problem in Serbia when you could literally see and smell the disguisting air yourself.

How to get through to these people before it's too too late is beyond me, but an information campaign wouldn't do much because you could give me the biggest and best scientific report about human effects on the climate, signed by every scientist on the planet, and I could just say "I don't believe that" and that's it. The question we need to answer is: "Why do people get so angry about man made climate change?"

For that to happen we’ll need a Pearl Harbor level climate event. That means thousands of people dying at once and in one place in the continental US. The spread out Covid deaths just don’t have enough psychological impact.

Honestly there are three players, which need to change. That is the US, China and the EU. That is about half of global emissions and more then half of global GDP. So if all three would work together the rest would easily be forced to follow.

The US has a massive climate change denying party. Even thou it is not in office right now, they still control multiple states. The Democrats are a bit better, but hardly convinced to stop climate change and only want to do things, which do not hurt, so no emissions trading scheme with hard caps or the like. At least a strong investment into green technology is going on and some states run some good policies, which slowly move things in the right direction.

China is building a lot of green technology, but is also consuming half the worlds coal and is by far the largest emitter of green house gases. Really hard to pretend they are serious about climate change, but the population is shrinking and the economy is growing slower, which means maybe the green technologies slow down emissions growth a bit more in the coming years. A full recession would however really help a lot. However the party hardly cares about the climate.

The EU has an actual plan and the lowest per capita emissions of the lot. However it is also in a position were change is becoming painfull and politicans hate pain. However a lot of pain is going to come as one of the few emissions trading system is in the EU and that caps emissions towards actually going below global average emissions. Also some foreign policy is helpfull, but even that is changing as gas is needed to replace Russian needs. However propably the best of the lot.

The rest is mostly poor or to weak to do something alone. Japan does not seem to care about much, the UK is working on degrowth for the stupidest reason ever, but Brexit is reducing emissions. India is building a lot of solar and seems to be a bit aware of the issues with coal, but developing the c ountry is more important. Brazil is actually in a really good position in many ways, but still is slowly cutting down the Amazon rainforest. Russia actually wants climate change. SA and the other OPEC countries are dependent on fossil fuel sales, they hate the idea of it.

In other words the best the lot could come up with to date is the Paris Climate Agreement. Great stuff, but yeah hardly international cooperation in a war like alliance. Best we can hope for is some country bullying others into reducing emissions.

People need to be educated. Each advertisement should be replaced by communications related to raising awareness of climate, ecological and environmental causes. Who knows maybe some people (and other species) would benefit from it.

But the merchants will never let it be...

We need an incredibly heavy emissions tax that will bankrupt companies if they don't comply. There's no negotiation because not complying will literally kill the planet we all share for their personal profit. They are putting profit above humanity as a whole.

This is not war. Not yet.

Why? Because there's is no consensus. Until that is achieved nothing really will happen.

So first thousands (in a short time span) must die. After that the consensus will come and the war footing will follow.

You really aren't going to like how much fossil fuel is burned in an actual war...