Careful now. Saying “it’s too late to do anything anyway” is a form denial. Saying “it’s doubtful we can actually stop it..” is damn close to that.
Science says we can do enough to mitigate the effects of climate change if governments rise to the challenge. This is what Greta is trying to encourage.
That's the real problem here. There is a lot that can be done to mitigate climate change, and if not stop or reverse it, then at least slow it considerably.
If the governments of the countries responsible for the bulk of the contributions to climate change have the political will to act
quickly enough and
decisively enough.
And that, to me, is the crux of the problem. The deniers hold far more power than the rest of us at this point in time; and have demonstrated that they are willing to do whatever it takes to safeguard that power, including things as petty and childish as their personal attacks on activists like Thunberg. Money talks louder than anything else in the corridors of power, and the money is held by people and organizations who are profiting greatly from destroying the environment. So to say the battle the rest of us have to face is an uphill one is an understatement worthy of a British humourist.
Unless, of course, they can find a way to profit from switching sides; which, let's face it, ain't gonna happen.
The worst part of it all is that the people who hold the power, who move the money and understand how this all works, clearly know quite well that they're in the wrong, that climate change is real, and that it will have devastating consequences in the long term. But they Just. Don't. Care. Short time gain and gratification is the only thing they care about; because the worst of it won't really take full effect until they're dead and gone. And hey, who cares what happens to the world after you're dead, right?
Even if they do end up living through it, their control of the world's resources means that they'll be largely insulated from the consequences of climate change, while the rest of the world drowns or catches fire. Hell, the worse it is for the rest of us, the better it is for them, because people who are poor and starving are much easier to control and enslave. Just like they do in third-world sweatshops right now, but on a global scale. We'll be back to the days of the early Industrial Revolution and Robber Barons.
As much as I like to believe that people will come to their senses and work things out, the prevalence of denialism evidenced everywhere just doesn't make me terribly hopeful. I do think that when things finally get bad enough there's likely to be a large-scale uprising, which will sweep the majority of them from power, but by then it'll be too little too late.
Yes, some European countries are implementing polices, but they're often little more than tokens, and lack real muscle. China is reducing their emissions, but too slowly to make a substantial difference in the time needed. And the US is not only doing squat all on the national level; but is actively rolling back programs to limit not only greenhouse gas emissions, but even air and water quality standards, which have a much more immediate and tangible effect. And then there's Russia, which is pushing very hard to
increase their carbon footprint, thanks to effectively being an oligarchy run like a criminal cartel.
Sure, but luchog was quite rightly pointing out that it goes both ways. Melting ice both exposes land (inland) and drowns land (on the coast). I don't know whether the amounts balance out, but I suspect they do not.