Very good way of phrasing it. I surmise this is also a big part of the reason why there isn't as much of a mass panic as the spectre of nuclear apocalypse has c

Very good way of phrasing it. I surmise this is also a big part of the reason why there isn't as much of a mass panic as the spectre of nuclear apocalypse has caused. A nuclear war is a much more concentrated and immediate event. It could start at the press of a button and be over in days/weeks (in terms of immediate damage). There is something visceral and terrifying about it's rapidity. A climate catastrophe is fundamentally slower, and even if the damage would be far greater, it feels less of a threat (very subjectively). It's easier to handwave it away. "People will think of something" is easier to say when a process happens over decades than when it happens in days. One can conveniently live in the phantasy that "I'll be climate conscious from tomorrow/next week/next year" for the time being, because the effects are still not terrible (for the 1st world).