the reality is that the poor and downtrodden masses will suffer - as is the case when you look back through history. it has always been this way. why should that change because you're alive? what do you contribute to the equation to alter it in any meaningful way?

some small minority percentage of humanity will survive (the wealthy 1st world nation's citizens) - probably in bunkers or perhaps in orbit - and after things "cool off" they will repopulate the world. you can see the faint beginnings of this starting now, if you look close enough.

it's true that some changes are coming down the pipeline, I just dont see those changes having any noticeable effect in the next ~50 years.

if it took 250 years for the climate to warm up (since the dawn of the industrial revolution), then it's going to take just as long to cool down - and that's presuming that we have the ability to make changes in our power generation methods to eliminate our dependence on coal/oil. a bit over 60% of all electricity generation, globally, comes from Coal, Gas, and Oil (in that order). we really just need reliable fusion & enough fuel for a few decades - by then the technology will have matured enough where we can get H3 from space. tangential to that would be to base solar power generation in a L4 or L5 orbit, then beam the power back to the surface.

in regards to extinction/famine - the absolute maximum carrying capacity of Earth, in regards to our species, is somewhere between 9 and 10 billion. that's a hard limit, unless we're willing to live hand to mouth like some people do in the 3rd world (very few folks are going to sign up for that). we're at 8 billion or so now. people arent going to stop having kids unless they're forced to, or there's not enough food to feed them (though as recent decades in Africa have shown, usually not even then). at some point, famine on a massive scale is a nigh certain thing. perhaps we need to depopulate by 30% or so? I'm not a policy maker and neither is anyone on Lemmy, so it probably doesnt matter that much what we think.

true enough - soundbites have always been a problem in journalism, and social media has hopped onto that bandwagon recently as well. the short attention span of any average person is at fault as well.

overall, I'd say there's a fair amount of interest in "solving global warming" or whatever short descriptor you want to use, but I agree that there's very little motivation. actual movement towards a solution would require generations of political capital, quite a bit of social capital, actual money - probably trillions of $$$ each year - and the realization that there is no way to "cheat" your way to cleaning up the mess. by that, I mean we will need to keep using our coal/gas power plants for some decades yet, and we'll also need to ramp up the pollution at least one whole order of magnitude in order to create enough energy storage to make it through the night or when the wind isnt blowing or the sun isnt shining (or during the winter, when solar is effectively useless in the northern equator, where most people live). even with all of that in mind, you'd still have to force people to use less, drive less, eat less, have fewer children; basically eliminate international shipping & bring manufacturing back home (really unlikely), eliminate air travel, and basically eliminate domestic shipping (unless we have reliable, cheap electricity). a return to life prior to WW2. possible? yes. achievable in any reasonable timeframe? no.

I also agree that the truth would need to be massaged in order for the masses to accept it - some parts of the world are rabidly anti-socialist, whereas other parts are happy to be obedient little robots for the good of the State. problem is, those socialist-leaning countries are the ones who have the most to lose when international trade is eliminated.