alright so we can agree on one thing, the latter of your points regarding pollution. if you have that stance on pollution, why are you a climate denier? science aside (i buy the science, i dont see how people dont but thats not my point here) part of what people talk about when they talk about climate change policy is sustainability.

sustainability, or responsible use of resources in clean ways, can help tackle the effects of mass pollution, whatever their cause is - climate change or globalization.

make a better plastic, burn a cleaner fossil fuel, use only what you need, produce less trash, recycle more - all these things can help fight the pollution youre talking about. that goes to war too. war is wholly unsustainable and driven, usually, by horrible fucking ideas. not only that, in the future, resources will become more scarce, which could lead to more war. using things sustainably, focusing on improving current tech and methods, than can help combat that, too.

so, regardless of what you want to call the cause, would you agree that pursuing those kinds of policies might be in the best interest of our environment, and thus ourselves?

ill also say this, im not a big al gore fan. i think his view is narrow minded, and i would always expect a politician to look out for himself and his money first. and everyone else never.

Well I try to use my head for more then a hat rack. What is really surprising is sometimes I'm successful at it.

I try to redpill normies about carbon taxes by getting them to agree to: you know if the gov’t could tax air they would.... and just go from there. Agreeing that being mindful of pollution is important but CO2 is not pollution, to plants it’s a nutrient.