Agreed, Michael W, there's a lot of ignoring and ignorance of the problem. However, there's also the question of whether this type of action, although it highlights the problem, actually alienates people as they focus on the inconvenience caused to them by the action rather than the message behind the action. [The only parallel I can thing of is the information/cyber security risks to businesses; I've been involved in a number of discussions whether FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt, that is, give us some budget or some hacker might destroy your business) is a turn off for C-level execs - what really helped was Dido Harding being quizzed on news programmes about Talk Talk's loss of data - it was first time I'd been asked in management meeting to explain what a SQL injection attack is! :-)] I suspect people won't take notice until, say, adverse weather looks like causing them problems, or they see the benefits in reducing energy costs by using renewables, or the heath benefits of cutting out or reducing meat consumption, etc - or perhaps Greta's campaign will engage younger people and influence change from that direction. In summary, in needs to "sell" the necessary changes to reverse the pending climate change disaster in a positive way. Sadly, as it's been gnored for four or five decades it may be too late anyway?
Michael Ixer ● 788d