... and to return this post to being on topic; the same is happening with Global Warming. The rich and advantaged do not want to alter their lives, one bit, because it involves helping somebody other than themselves ... and they do not have the capacity to think of others (same with health). If they did, they would pay better wages and share their wealth (and not by tax dodging charities, but by reducing their profits).
Well, now that you have signaled your virtue, Pete, perhaps this might be a good time to to move our discussion to some practical considerations of exactly how we can go about making the world into the kind of egalitarian, environmentally sustainable place warmism dogmas say are are absolutely essential to maintain human life on spaceship earth.
I'm not going to enumerate the kinds of world-wide scale structural changes that have been widely discussed by the various international, national, and local governmental entities---all of whom are seeking power over the rest of us---because I'm pretty sure everyone reading and participating in this thread is well aware of what's being proposed. And if you aren't, you should be. If, however, for the sake of discussion we accept the do-or-die climate predictions, then the governmental planners are right: all earth societies both modern and traditional, are going to have to undergo radical restructuring if we are to even approach "sustainability".
Typically, most warmist discussions don't go very far beyond stressing the pressing need for "racial restructuring" but, reading between the lines, it's pretty clear that the only way to remake the planet into a place that's safe for our grandkids to establish some kind of police state to enforce environmental rules. Although done with the highest of intentions, it's still tyranny.
The reason for this is obvious: a substantial portion of the world's population, if not most, are simply not going to willingly alter their lifestyles to the degree warmist dogmas will demand.
Here in America, for instance, the problem of governance is particularly acute since, thanks to our 2nd. Amendment---which was rather conspicuously written as a way of allowing te citizenry to resist tyranny---the creation of a climate-saving police state might well prove difficult in a society were there are actually more weapons than there are people. And, honestly, I think the US is just the tip of the iceberg (pun intended). Just looking at what is happening right now in Hong Kong, I think we have a pretty graphic demonstration of just how people around the world value freedom and liberty. Those people on the streets there waiving the American flag are doing so on purpose.
So here's my point (and I'm directing this question to all of the participants on this thread). Let's dispense with the climate is/is not warming happy talk for a bit and get serious.
Although it would be wonderful if people willingly sacrificed for the greater good, that is highly unlikely. Therefore, some form of l tyranny is going to be necessary to save the planet. In order for that to happen, to make the world sustainable---in order to have a world for our grandchildren, halt the rise of sea-levels, halt the spread of deserts, make sure that our growing populations have enough food, etc., etc. . . . are you willing to support the kind of totalitarian police state societies that will be necessary to make all this happen?
Call me a revanchist-Luddite if you want but I tend to be very self-interested about personal freedom. The kind of liberty and freedom I enjoy in America came at a high cost and is much more important to me than someone else's sense of safety. I'm sorry, but it just is.