That's one of the biggest problems I've had to solve in my head with regards to solving climate change. The level of social restructuring required to avoid a climate catastrophe at this point would almost certainly lead to rioting in the streets. Millions of people would be out of work if we jacked the price of fossil fuels.

People's livelihoods (and large parts of civilization) depend on fossil fuels directly or indirectly. At best I think we could transition entirely to nuclear energy to meet our current demand (there are negative externalities involving radioactive risks but we can ignore that for now). And then build electric cars? They are expensive, and what are we going to do about air/boat/large road vehicles?

And then there is the problem of geopolitics in general. So much of power on the international scale is the ability to trade and having a thriving economy. Not giving a shit about the environment is the selfish choice if your country (assuming we're viewing nations as individual actors) seeks global dominance. Obama was certainly a realist on the international scale. In the end we're tribal fuckin' animals with enough technology to destroy the world.

So fifty-something politicians are just as clueless to sort this all out as we are. We blame societal institutions but really it's individuals that don't give a shit. They can't just pull the lever and make it happen, as much as I want to pillory boomers. I appreciate Greta Thunberg a lot. It takes an obscene amount of courage to be an actor on that level in society at such a young age. Unlike redditeurs I do not believe that the sentimental value of time in life is worth the environmental cost and we can save that time anyway through clean energy. I was motivated into a politics major for similar reasons as a teenager so hopefully I can use that as a mitigating factor when we're all tried at the Hague 30 years from now.