[smacktoward]

Perhaps because the “other side” has spent thirty years fighting tooth and nail to stop even the most modest attempts to address the problem?

When people spend that long telling you what they want, it’s generally safe to believe them.

[thetrumanshow]

Probably so, but when someone steps in the direction you want them to go, its not effective to whack them for it. If you want them to continue down your path you say "Well done! But, can you take just one more small step?"

The hope is that these steps accumulate into something meaningful. A virtuous upward spiral.

[martingoodson]

There is evidence that performing minor activities like tree planting actually reduces willingness to take meaningful action against climate change. This is called the 'low cost' hypothesis [1].

If you wanted to reduce public pressure against fossil fuels you would instigate something exactly like a tree planting program.

[1] https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v166y2019ic2.html

[grawprog]

Treeplanting itself is of mixed usefulness. I've done some treeplanting, sometimes it's done well, native species are used, trees are planted properly in appropriate spots, other times, no care in tree selection is used, and introduced/invasive or just unsuitable trees are planted, trees are planted inmproperly or in locations where they won't grow and a lot of money and time ends up wasted for no benefits.

[ars]

> that performing minor activities

Can I assume you are also opposed to straw and plastic bag bans? Unlike tree planting which at least does something, those bans are almost entirely worthless.

[mikeyouse]

Neither of those have anything to do with climate change.

[Charlie_26]

Plastic production requires oil

[8bitsrule]

Plastic incineration creates CO2.

[gamblor956]

Bans on straws and plastic bags have a direct measurable impact on local marine wildlife and in the reduction of microplastics.

Now that Asian countries are introducing bans, we should start seeing slowing microplastic accumulation. Within a decade microplastic accumulation should peak. By then we'll have more efficient means of addressing microplastic pollution.

One point not often brought up is that microplastics in the ocean contribute to ocean temperature rise, since the plastics are able to retain (and thus radiate) more thermal energy. This one of the reasons the great garbage patches are hypoxic--warmer water holds less oxygen.

[mhuffman]

> The hope is that these steps accumulate into something meaningful. A virtuous upward spiral.

Or, if let's say the other side isn't working in good faith, they could then hold it up as "proof" they have done their part and ride that "effort" for another 30-40 years.

[awb]

If you want to build cooperation then praising any progress, no matter how small it might seem, is usually a good idea.

Sure there might be more disagreement down the road but any bipartisan action on climate change is better than none.

[bnjms]

We want people to feel good about positive actions taken so when we have to pressure them again they have a reason to care and turn about. Any positive movement means they're slipping, realize they're slipping and have to do something to appease critics. But doing too little makes them a hypocrite and opens them to additional criticism. Which this article is an example of.

If I'm damned either way I'm going to go to hell doing as I please.

[ars]

So what you are saying, is that criticizing them for any progress is more effective?

[planetzero]

If you mean the environmentalists and nuclear power, I agree. Nuclear power really is the only serious answer to climate change.

It's hard to know if climate change would even be an issue if protesters of the 70s, 80s, and 90s wouldn't have made any investment into nuclear power so difficult.