I really regret the emergence of figures like Greta Thunberg, while heralded as a great advocate for action against climate change I feel she has actually been more harmful than good - she advocates an extreme alarmist position, often referencing highly debated timelines ('follow the science' doesn't take into account scientific dissent) which of course if/when they don't happen get ignored much like a doomsday cult.
It has resulted in this "if you're not perpetually panicking you're an anti-scientific climate denialist" mentality which I find really stymies actual practical discussion on the subject.
It's not helped by actual climate denialists pointing this out and thus tarring those like myself who absolutely believe in man-made climate change but who are pragmatists who realise the world is not quite so simplistic as good/evil and governments are not all-powerful gods who can magically change everything all at once.
I also think unfortunately there is a fair bit of anti-capitalism (the system that has lifted billions from poverty) that has snuck in, in the UK 'extinction rebellion' a very much Greta-esque protest group have openly advertised their views on this. Of course no comparison is made to other economic systems and their ecological track records...
It shouldn't be about ideals - 'we must cut carbon emissions to 0 no matter what', but rather 'what option is best in comparison to the consequences of another'.
If you're the type of person who believes they're saving humanity, you naturally don't fret over details like what do people want, or some rational cost/benefit analysis. You know better. The axioms are set and indisputable.
Barnacled, you're quite articulate and reasoned in this thread, but I doubt you're changing anybody's mind.
And FYI, the same type of personality also likes to compile "lists of ideological opponents". It's an old book played a hundred times before, so it's good to be aware of that.