> I am trying to understand why we are wasting so much time in getting there I think many people here have touched on important reasons why we are wasting time

> I am trying to understand why we are wasting so much time in getting there I think many people here have touched on important reasons why we are wasting time (e.g., governments paying lip service to the problem). But I think something that hasn't been mentioned yet is that the emerging climate crisis won't be described as a climate crisis. Instead, it will be described by its indirect effects. For example, we will have mass flooding problems. We will have mass migration problems. We will have crop failures and famine problems, etc. And political entities won't say "this is a climate problem." Instead, they will argue/wage-war/whatever by saying, "We've got to stop this migration at our border." Or "We've had horribly bad look with historic flooding." If there were an asteroid heading for earth, we could (probably) all band together and try to deal with it because most people could understand the direct effects of an asteroid hit. But climate change is more subtle and slowly evolving. So, it's easier to convince people that it's just a hoax. Obviously, I'm speaking from a US-centric point of view. I'm not sure how the rest of the world thinks about this issue.