"in the long run" means "over the long term"

I know what it means, I was making a statement as to the actual time available for a solution to be developed. Everyone appears to be talking about how incremental improvements over time to the hull of the Titanic will somehow stave off the immediate sinking that’s going on.

You can't stop the immediate sinking. Getting frustrated at people for not coming up with a "solution" faster is counterproductive. There will be some survivors. These survivors will need to solve the problem in the long run.

> You can't stop the immediate sinking.

Technically we can. Those in power don’t _want_ to. They don’t have our best interest at heart.

These kind of “it is inevitable” attitudes are a big part of the problem.

Yeah but this ain't an iceberg, it's a leak. Gradual improvement CAN fix it as long as people don't panic or give up.

> Yeah but this ain't an iceberg, it's a leak. Gradual improvement CAN fix it as long as people don't panic or give up.

The available data, as well as the interpretation of all credible climate scientists strongly begs to differ from your opinion.

When nature kills enough of us off that industrialized societies collapse because they lack enough people to run it.

At this point, climate change denial is indistinguishable from rooting for a Mad Max existence. Even if someone is not convinced, they should still go along with changes to reduce emissions the way scientists propose because the price of being wrong is nature deciding to reduce emissions its way. And, as we are seeing, that involves a whole lot of destroying everything.