The main problem I have with how the issue of climate change is addressed is that there’s a huge disparity between how it’s described and how most authorities and luminaries have acted. If we are really on the brink of an existential crisis then why haven’t we been panic-building nuclear plants for decades? It was at least a temporary measure that would have bought us time while renewables and batteries caught up, but, nuclear has been widely panned amongst the environmental cadres for decades. True crises call for extreme measures and nuclear is pretty tame by comparison! Also, why haven’t we been running multiple global Manhattan projects to effectively mitigate warming or adapt our lives and our ecosystems to the threat? The intrepid yet comparatively pedestrian efforts of a few billionaires and government research grants are not nearly proportional to the descriptions of what is allegedly imminently upon us. Instead we have mostly platitudes and political theater, like the Paris Climate Agreement. It should come as no surprise then that many people suspect the danger is being exaggerated for political gain.
Political manipulators use lies that validate people's base emotions and fears.
Telling people that all the indulgences they love are destroying the planet but won't affect us until generations in the future is a poor strategy that only a tactless political manipulator would employ. Nobody wants to hear about climate change, it's tone deaf.
To answer your questions, one need only look through the lens of incentives. What are people motivated to do?
> If we are really on the brink of an existential crisis then why haven’t we been panic-building nuclear plants for decades? ... nuclear has been widely panned amongst the environmental cadres for decades.
Making nuclear power into a bogeyman was the fossil fuel industries' first and most wildly successful astroturfing campaign. Co-opting the nascent environmentalist movement in the 1950s was a stroke of genius.
The incentives for fossil fuel miners are, I hope, obvious here.
The incentives for politicians are about keeping their jobs. Say things to stay visible in the media; do what your donors want. Those people in the future? They won't vote for me next election.
So yes, you are right in that politicians are saying things for political gain. Scientists and engineers make really bad politicians though; they tend to say what they believe to be true.
For politicians you could add incredulity, inertia, and distraction as well if you wish.
Incredulity: they lack the skills to evaluate what scientists say, so they rely on heuristics: the climate is stable. Inertia: meetings and more meetings. Distraction: there are always more visible and understandable "crises" (really, bike-shedding) that serve equally well or better.
And narcissism too: no-one honours people who prevented crises; they remember the hero of the hour. (See: the widespread belief that Y2K was a big hoax, rather than there being a day of gratitude that the world's financial systems didn't seize up for 18 months.)
My expected scenario is this: panic after a few really large weather events in the 2030s (say, 10 million or more dead in a prolonged heatwave, or a bunch of them, and/or simultaneous crop failure--down 40% or more--in 3 of the 5 major grain-growing regions of the world, twice in five years, and/or really serious flooding in major urban areas).
I expect to see the beginnings of serious government action in the 2040s. If I'm still alive.
> Scientists and engineers make really bad politicians though; they tend to say what they believe to be true.
A very dangerous statement to generalise. Because it implies that someone with a political aptitude is incapable of these trades (ie become a scientist or engineer).
>the widespread belief that Y2K was a big hoax
It was a hoax where the marketing worked to sell Y2K compliant keyboards (and toasters probably).
The main tangible piece of evidence for climate change is to say unequivocally that the global temperature went up by 1 degree by a certain date.
We can’t get beyond 2-3 degrees, 4-6 degrees will have serious consequences.
This is the one benchmark that is not ambiguous, whereas talking about polar ice caps melting (at variable rates), or global emission going up/down/stay the same is sort of ‘eh, so what’s that mean? We up 1 degree or not?’.
Things that fall under hysteria is the claim that wildfires are because of climate change, or that it’s hotter than it’s ever been in so and so place, or that hurricane season is particularly bad this year because … the boogey man climate change.
