[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

This is extremely narrow minded and a reason that climate change is losing traction and the exact mentality that has led the USA into it's current unfortunate timeline. Calling people names only serves to unite them and rise against as we have seen with MAGA. For the longest time the big problem with trying to get the masses to accept climate change is that those preaching that the masses must change their lifestyles are the ones guilty of having the largest carbon footprints. It's simply not a good way to go about convincing the masses that they need to make all the sacrifices so the rich can preserve their lifestyle. We need to find better ways than using celebrities as mouthpieces and not resort to calling people "climate deniers" because they are hesitant to believe the rich and wealthy. It seems a lot of people here have disdain for the rich and wealthy when it comes to regular politics yet somehow when it comes to climate change the masses are supposed to do a 180 and think these people really have the best interests in mind. Suzuki has simply done a terrible job of getting his message across because he's first and foremost an ####### and secondly because he doesn't walk the walk.

The biggest thing we can take from this dark timeline in history is to ensure that we don't make the mistakes again and all your post did was show that many people still don't understand that calling people names and lumping them into groups is divisive and problems are much easier solved when people are united.

I don't know about you, but throughout my life I've been called I've been called all kinds of things:

- communist
- marxist
- libtard
- loser
- failure
- fag
- beta
- soyboy
- cu<k
- incel
- inbred
- parasite
- leech
- waste of skin

But as soon as I reply with any pushback at all, using a definitionally correct term to describe those who are denying reality (which as been corroborated through entire mountain ranges of peer reviewed scientific research)... suddenly it's "Gasp! How dare you spread negativity and division!"

Look, I get the need for both sides to stop calling each other names. But it has to be a two-way street. It has to. As a starting point, right-wingers need to stop calling anything that isn't 100% laissez-faire capitalism, communism.

For the longest time the big problem with trying to get the masses to accept climate change is that those preaching that the masses must change their lifestyles are the ones guilty of having the largest carbon footprints.

Not true. It's just that the celebrities who speak out about climate change get the media attention, especially by right-wing media that loves to light their hair on fire over any hypocrisy they can find. If their message was "hey, this person flies on a private jet, let's pressure this person to stop flying on a private jet", that would be reasonable. Instead, their message has been much closer to "hey, this person flies on a private jet, therefore climate change is a hoax". Not a reasonable message at all, yet hundreds of millions of people have fallen for it.

If you're looking for the real reason we're in the mess we're in, look no further than right-wing media.

As for the wealthy, you seem to be under the impression that they are largely on the side of acknowledging climate change and wanting to fight against it. I would argue it's actually the opposite - the vast majority of the wealthy would rather deny climate change because they don't want their massive fortunes & incomes to be taxed to pay for the energy transition. And, in the case of the O&G industry, they want the gravy train to continue for as long as possible.

Thing is, most rich people who deny climate change do so from the shadows, they avoid media attention, they let the right-wing media ecosystem do the talking for them. Whereas rich people who speak out about climate change on the acknowledgement side are relatively few, but they seem so much more numerous than they actually are because of the media attention they get. And their tendency to fly around in private jets does, unfortunately, make for very bad optics.

So, in regards to climate, have the ultra wealthy largely been a force for good or a force for bad? I'd argue they've largely been a force for bad. So if the masses really don't want to take the side of the ultra wealthy - they should be taking the side of climate change acknowledgement and action.

Obscenely rich from whose perspective?

I don't know what to say to someone who doesn't think billionaires are obscenely rich. Kind of like I don't know what to say to flat earthers.