Canada

Equating nuclear apocalypse to the climate emergency is so strange. One requires a whole chain of command to decide that their friends, family and everything they've ever believed should be destroyed, the other is the default scenario.

Details really do matter. War, nuclear war and political turmoil are all very different scenarios. Climate change will likely have more severe consequences for humanity than every war ever fought.

To counter the "doomer" (scientific) point of view you'd have to point to some feasible solutions like banning CFCs to fix the hole in the ozone. We have one, stop or severley reduce all greenhouse gas emissions, and it's not being acted upon.

Instead we've decided to keep pumping an ever increasing amount into the atmosphere each day and as a result are currently on course for 8-10°C of warming. For context the largest extinction event in Earth's history which resulted in so much death it stained the geological records happened during a temperature rise of about 8°C.

The difference between the cold war and climate change is that the former could be stopped simply by not being a warmongering idiot. The latter, even if we stop being a nature-raping idiot species, is still going to fuck. us. up.

Also, a lot of people have died in wars, genocides, natural disasters, and political churn. As a survivor for whatever reason, I'm not really sure how valuable your insight is. There are a lot of dead children out there.

Why not both? We have an unstoppable climate crisis on our hands AND a nuclear threat, again, from Russia with the conflict in Ukraine.

Thank you for the perspective. I honestly never thought about things that way before. There's not much we can do, so we do what we can.