Yeah, and everyone should be happy about this, a greener Earth is a good thing for everyone, they did it, and we can avoid the apocalypse by simply copying them(, not on coal but on everything else, and they’re not only successful in ecology, we’re so aggressive, as if collaboration/harmony wasn’t desirable&doable).
Usually, it’s “their system is better than ours in those domains, and i want to imitate that”, here it’s more that we’re going to die by the end of century because the forces of the market aren’t quick enough, apparently.
As in Wandering Earth, we could collaborate peacefully, at least if it’s a question of survival ?
What i was trying to point out is that ecology was already very much discussed in the 60s, with the question of the scarcity of ressources already in mind contrary to what one could have thought(, now there’s some talk of “eco-terrorists”, but again eco-fascism isn’t a word that appeared last year), and the majority of the population believes that we’re going to die if we don’t do something, and we’ve already killed a large part of the biosphere.
If our leaders believe that we absolutely have to act NOW, like we’re being told, then journalists should help the viewer understand why the current strategy to survive( climate change) hasn’t borne fruits yet, or is it not an imminent threat that has to be resolved ? Perhaps are we already doing the most that can be done, and/or are on a good track, so there’s no reason to talk about it anymore ? Well, the People’s Republic of China found a more efficient solution, yet we’re not glad to have a greater chance of survival ? Are we even going to use it ?

I’m not satisfied with what i wrote, i’m trying to write in a logical manner, but it still appears to be nonsensical.
There’s either a big conspiracy to make us believe that climate change is real, or we indeed have to act NOW because we’re not even sure if we’ll make it in time to stabilize the rising temperature of the planet. I don’t see a third option(, we’re already ‘doing what we can’/‘on a good track’ ?).
My uneasiness may originate from me not having grasped the fact(?) that we’re going to die because we’re not changing our behaviors fast enough, and/or i suppose that any talk of impedent doom wouldn’t seem serious in the first place.
A majority may indeed believe in the urgency of climate, but perhaps only in theory, as some distant conceptual object, i.d.k., but we’re not voting for the most ecological political parties b.t.w., perhaps are we kinda hoping that the temperatures will stop rising by themselves, or that we’ll find out that we were already quick enough, 🤷.
If we have ‘to change/act now’/‘no time left ‘for more experimentations’/‘to find a better method’’ though, then we should be glad that a safer/‘more successful’ method has been found, and increase our chances of survival by imitating it.

A long comment that should probably have been reduced to a few sentences, ~sry.