In 50 years time, when things go seriously south for mankind and the history of our era is written, our children and grandchildren are going to regard us with the utmost contempt. As for the Kochs and Trumps of the world, what could possibly be a fair reaction to the people who destroyed the planet? A bloody uprising followed by a complete overthrow of the system? Perhaps the ruling class think that by that point they will have enough systems of control in place to keep themselves comfortable as civilization collapses around them, a la Children Of Men.

I'm not sure the gravity of the evil has quite sunk in yet. We are witnessing the worst, most venal, most corrupt behavior that mankind has ever partaken. It is quite spectacular.

Unfortunately, developed nations are mostly powered by oil with significant nuclear power added. China isn't. China is powered by coal. Coal produces something like 10x more CO2 per unit of energy (kWh) compared to oil, and about 200x more than nuclear. So climate change accords have systematically worsened CO2 output rather than improving it, while destroying already severely damaged manufacturing industries in the developed world.

With predictable results: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC (climate accords were signed in 1992, 2011 and 2015)

The answer to your question is to lower further damage to industries in the US and Europe and thereby will both improve the economics of the situation and actually lower CO2 output.

So your question is about as fair as asking why climate activists keep destroying the world and what their long term plan is.

(e.g. Here are how the people "improving" climate actually act: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/paris-un-global-warming-su... - Claiming that these people actually care and agree that changing our ways to make things better for the environment is ... well, let's just say I see some arguments against that viewpoint)

But no, it's probably just coal's fault.

Edit: I'm not saying that it's not a factor but it's one in a vast array. A country that can unnaturally and immorally suppress its workers and environmental goals will always manage to produce for less money.

The real problem is we let things get this way. We ignored allowed open trade. We don't fix it by going back to coal, we fix it by forcing China —and its spiritual successors— off it.

That honor falls on the climate conferences and our "scientific policy stance".

That's very heroic of them. Seems pretty upsetting that the masses are too ignorant to understand this.

The masses are too ignorant to understand this ? Well, yes. The masses, of course, never try to understand anything at all.

But therefore my question : what will climate activists do when their policies have destroyed the planet (while "trying to save the planet" - heh) ? Will they go live somewhere else ?

I think the simple answer to your questions is that they have no end game. They only have one time in mind and that's short term gain.

They'll be long dead. There will be no consequences for them.

I do remember having read that a lot of law enforcement agencies don't collect, or collect in a way that makes it hard to tabulate shootings by officers- but a) I don't have a cite for that, it was a while ago, and b) that's also up to individual enforcement agencies, not federal.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

- The Congressman Who Restricted Gun Violence Research Has Regrets: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-...

- The ban has supposedly been lifted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...

- Some more history: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as...

- some background: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-re...

And I love this entry on a blog site (Forbes): Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-ce...

The reasoning? "There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. "

I ask because there are plenty of other such cases. We decide how much to spend on freeway construction and maintenance vs lives saved. We study the dangers, additivity etc of smoking and decide it's better to place some restrictions on people's presumed freedom of choice in order to, ironically, improve their in practice freedom of choice. We restrict the absoluteness of some peoples' freedom of association to improve everyone's freedom of association, using data to determine where this might be appropriate and how much. Etc etc.

What I have said is true regardless if you think the right to bear arms is absolute or if you think it's absolutely abhorrent, much less if your position is in between. Do you believe that science has no bearing on morality of any kind, or only on the topic of guns?

You can have gun rights and gun control you know..

Denying us the freedom to bear arms (as our governing leaders and peacekeepers do) and further diminishing the power of the citizen to keep his government in check is the step backwards, my friend. We may yet see another revolt in America if things continue to get worse. I don't think we will see anything like that in, say, the UK. And revolt was an inalienable right handed to us by our thoughtful forefathers who knew the government would continue to encroach on its citizens to the point of becoming a threat to them, by its very nature.

Isn't there an asymmetry here?

I mean, aren't the people who see climate change as a DEFCON 1 emergency way more motivated to support environmental causes than the... um people who think it's a hoax are to oppose it?

Are there people (not oligarchs) who really oppose environmental causes? Or isn't it just bundled up with all of the GOP's other value propositions? And the constituents just include it because tribalism?

edit: my point is that it's us versus the oligarchs. This is not something like guns or abortion or hell even fiscal policy where individuals are going to dig in their heels. This issue is less partisan in that respect. I don't think it's a big deal to the right beyond being a part of their caricature of the left. Sure, some have bought the narrative that the economics are somehow bad for US. But that's a weak and indirect point, and one that just isn't going to activate grassroots opposition.

0) http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/4/322

Also, find a local group that supports the same policy aims that you have. There are lots to find, especially compared to just 100 days ago. Join up with them and see how you can help amplify each others' voices.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Term

There are also files on archive.org, but I feel they are harder to find and browse. E.g. https://archive.org/details/ClimateChangeUSEPA or https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_JTL9-NV3L

A large portion thinks it isn't made by men though.

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yco...