zlacker

My personal perspective, FWIW:), is not "is this natural/normal" but a far more selfish "is this good for us?"

There were many extremely destructive events in the past that were perfect "normal", in the sense they're not man made, but we might not enjoy happening now.

So if there's a climate change happening ; and if it is negative / bad for us ; and if some actions we take can make it better and some can make it worse... It feeels like a no-brainer, that religion and capitalism and myriad other talking points of dissenting only distract from.

I.e. Even if without human kind, some curve would have a spike ; and that spike is bad for us ; and we can flatten that spike ; them umm lets do it.

It feels fairly intuitive that "pollution is bad" (we can argue how bad), and "adding c02 and making everything crazier is bad" (we can argue how much of the bad is our contribution).

>>Nikola+(OP)
In my view the entire point should be maintaining the earth atmosphere in a balance that suits us. Too much CO2 is bad but if we remove too much will be bad for us as well. Right now the common agreement is that we have too much of it though.

>>travel+02
That's kind of where I'm at.

I find that a lot of folks start with very strong disagreement; and eventually it turns out (my interpretation, possibly horribly wrong!) subconsciously they resent feeling blamed or judged or moralized for just living. And fair enough. But for me, the key part is a very selfish perspective - something is happening that's bad for us, we are making it to some degree or another worse, and there's a clear optimal place on a curve of economic activity vs life stye vs future of species, and I don't think we are on the selfish optimal spot, let alone some "global earth/gaia-perspective multi-species well-being of all life" optimal spot.