'It's too late': David Suzuki says the fight against climate change is lost

Why There Was No Unified Climate “Plan”

• Commenters distinguish between goals (cut emissions, reach net-zero) and an actionable plan (who does what, when, with what tools and trade‑offs).
• International frameworks (Kyoto, Paris, UN/EU reports) are cited as the closest thing to a unified approach, but they remain high-level and often unenforced.
• Several argue it’s unrealistic to expect a single masterplan for the whole global economy; many overlapping national and sectoral plans exist instead.

Roles of Scientists, Governments, and Industry

• Broad agreement that scientists’ role is to describe risks and targets, not design and implement policy.
• Others argue lawmakers lack technical expertise, so experts and engineers must help design concrete pathways.
• An “ideal chain” would be: science → government policy → industry adaptation, with minimal guilt-tripping of individuals; in practice, every link is distorted by money and power.

Opposition, Capitalism, and Incentives

• Fossil-fuel interests and shareholders are described as the core opposition; any serious plan reduces their profits.
• Tech shifts (internet, AI, fracking) spread because they made money; decarbonization is perceived as costly and behavior‑changing.
• Debate over whether solving climate could be more profitable long-term; short-term horizons and fragmented incentives dominate.

Global Coordination and National Responsibility

• Fragmented nation-states pursuing self‑interest make global coordination hard; atmosphere is shared, so a few net‑zero countries don’t solve it.
• Some emphasize that without the US and China, others’ efforts are insufficient; outsourcing emissions via imports further muddies accounting.

How Bad Is It? Impacts, Risk, and Messaging

• One camp says the movement’s messaging is alarmist; Earth won’t be “unlivable” soon, people can adapt (e.g., air conditioning).
• Others focus on systemic risk: crop failures, economic fragility, infrastructure destroyed by fires/floods, unaffordable housing in high‑risk zones, and already‑unlivable heat for poorer regions.
• Several note rising disaster costs and argue that effects are already severe and worsening within current lifetimes.

Media, Perception, and Trust in Science

• Some recall climate as a dominant topic in the 2000s and see it as less prominent now; others contest that “near‑term apocalypse” was ever the mainstream scientific message.
• Commenters worry both about scientific warnings being right (major disruption) and about them being badly wrong (collapse of trust in institutions).
• Many see public belief as driven more by propaganda and political identity than by evidence, with climate skepticism and vaccine disputes cited as symptoms.

“Too Late” and Next Steps

• Several accept that major damage is now locked in for centuries; focus should shift to mitigation plus adaptation and local resilience.
• Others argue it’s unclear how “too late” is defined, but agree that continued delay only narrows remaining options.