I think that you can think genocide is bad and when given a choice between two viable candidates pick the one that is less likely to double down on genocide. But hey, that’s just someone who has seen third parties in the US never quite achieve what they say they’re doing EVERY election.

Nicely said.

And even if we could do a bit more, why should we make more sacrifices, when big corporations are accountable for much of the environment’s issues?

We, as in the people living now, did not design it, we are stuck with the designs of forefathers upon forefathers that had a few centuries to bake in profit above people. Before the American government, the British government did it. Other governments mimic the Big Guys. Governments are designed by the rich and powerful to minimize the power of the individual, especially in America. Keep the citizens too busy, too overworked, too sick, too poor, too homeless, too much lead in the water, too many PFAS, too much fracking pollution in the air. They just pay lip service to freedom and keep education levels low enough so people are either unaware or infinitely feeling helpless.

Look at the water shortages looming in western US. The Department of Reclamation run by a bunch of Mormons that thought it was their God-given right to terraform the US made some overly optimistic measurements at the beginning of the 20th century and ran amok building dams and changing water routes all across the west. That led to building entire cities in places that should not have cities (Phoenix, AZ; Los Angeles, CA; Las Vegas, NV, etc.) and now those cities are “too big to fail” slurping up all the water they can from places very far away. LA has an entire nuclear facility powering water pumps to push water over a mountain range to feed some of it. The agricultural West and midwest (Midwest: NE, KS, etc.) all relied on these river sources as well as giant underground aquifers. The water was always finite, but the US government sold it cheap to push farming and agriculture into the west and away from the south where water was more plentiful. Now it’s running out.

This isn’t even getting into the problems faced by the poorer nations you mentioned above, resources will become spread so thin, looming water wars and other conflicts on the horizon that will start out so civil at their beginning. Those nations at the equator will be on their own to survive, with mass-migration towards the poles being the only real solution for those that survive.

We (now-humans) are stuck having to mitigate the worst of the damage for humanity and many species to continue to survive, and attempt to roll back all these arrogant asinine greedy decisions in the hope that the near-future will be at least semi-habitable.

Earth will be fine, it’ll rebuild and reset and grow some new beings. Trying to guilt people for things they didn’t do and have little control over is not a good motivator when faced with major extinction.

We have to hope things get better, because no matter how bad things get, they can always get worse. People will see things getting worse as evidence that it hasn’t gotten worse enough. The idea that there is some point where it can get bad enough to spur positive change is false. The positive change that has happened in society originates from people wanting things to get better.

We have to convince people to want things to get better, by showing them it can be better. Too many people are worried about losing the little they have. People have to see we can all be living more complete lives without harming the planet.

Personally I’d prefer any way that doesn’t shovel the less abled and less privileged into the Accelerationism Machine as fuel.

That’s not really how that works. The 2°C increase is a prediction of how average temperatures will increase based on already existing carbon in the atmosphere.

If we stop emitting today, the average temperature will still increase beyond 2°C and stay there unless there’s another force actively removing the CO2 from the atmosphere.

This isn’t “if we stop emitting today, we’ll peak at 2°C increase and then it’ll go back down” the 2°C prediction is a permanent increase to the average temperature.

The damage is done. Millions will likely die regardless of how much carbon we put out from this point forward. The fight now is to decrease the people that will die beyond that number.

Those extra years don’t mean anything though. It’s the target that matters. Just because 10 years was predicted doesn’t mean we can do whatever we want in this 10 years as long as it fixed right before that mark.