[xyzzyz]

Because most people have heard the scaremongering about global warming for decades already, and nothing that requires a total realignment of the economy and society hasn't happened yet (and no, some heatwaves and some extra hurricanes are not a big deal enough to make people care). Politicians understand that nothing serious will happen in their lifetimes either, and scientists, when asked, don't paint nearly as bleak picture of the warming as the activists suggest.

Look at the most recent IPCC report: the predicted sea level rise by 2100 is below 1 meter with 95% confidence, and the economic cost of global warming is predicted to be at only a few percent of global GDP. Sure, we'll need to build a few sea walls here and there, rebuild a few more houses destroyed in hurricanes, shift cultivation from the newly-desertified areas to the areas where the climate change increases precipitation, but that's not a disastrous outcome that we need to avert by spending huge amounts of effort right now. Of course, if you support yourself by back-breaking subsistence farming, these things would in fact be a disaster for you, but this is a problem for poor people in poor places very far from developed countries. We (both society and the politicians) don't care much about their plight today, and we won't care about them in future either.

That's why hardcore "green" politicians don't push the society for some serious change: because there's not much need to do so in developed countries. People wouldn't like the change, because it would make their lives clearly worse, while doing nothing won't make it significantly worse. Some people though like the mood affiliation brought by "green" people fighting for "climate", which is why the green politicians only need to hit those notes in their hearts to get the support. Making real change is optional.

[CuriousSkeptic]

This was my understanding until a few weeks ago. But reading up on the subject paints a different picture. With the non-linear changes likely to be hit soon. Things are going to get serious for us too, and likely noticeably so within the next decade.

[xyzzyz]

Where did you read about these non-linear changes? Do these represent the climate change consensus, like e.g. IPCC?

[CuriousSkeptic]

To be honest I’m extrapolating a bit based on my own understanding of complex systems, and how the IPCC report things vs, how individual scientists interpret things, and how scientists tend to report things. But when reading IPCC watch out for language about “safe predictions” (linear extrapolations from historical data based is kind of safe, since it’s easily quantifiable, model based on uncertain non-linear changes in unprecedented conditions are less safe, so official reports are wary of quantifying things beyond hand wavy descriptions.

This YouTube channel was suggested here on HN a while back, and has been interesting to follow: https://www.youtube.com/user/PaulHBeckwith