[over_bridge]

Agreed. Setting a boundary invites people to point out that nothing happened the second that boundary was crossed. Maybe defining zones with consequences attached might be more meaningful so we can evaluate which cost is preferred - solving the problem or living with it.

[digging]

> Setting a boundary invites people to point out that nothing happened the second that boundary was crossed.

This problem is unsolvable by changing terminology because it's rooted in denial and misinformation.

> Maybe defining zones with consequences attached might be more meaningful so we can evaluate which cost is preferred - solving the problem or living with it.

How is this not identical to setting boundaries? A zone is a bounded area.

As for the preferred cost - the only correct response is solving the problem. The alternative is not "live with it", it's failure and suffering. Only when we're in the failure state does the choice become "live with it [and suffer]" or "die".

You seem to have internalized the suicidal narrative that addressing climate change is a tax on our economy, when in fact it's just a different and more productive way to spend money that we're already spending.

[over_bridge]

What are you on about? So condescending...

I'm just saying that you can link certain zones to specific outcomes. If we move into a new zone we haven't crossed the boundary (which feels final and irreversible), we are in a new zone with new consequences. We can leave that zone as well and change the outcome.

Obviously I'm in favour of fixing the problems but I'm not the majority of elected officials or their climate denying donors. You need to frame it in a way that they can act on it hence the choice.