I am principally against violence. It has a high chance of backfiring and is extremely low morality behaviour.
Will I use violence against a violent attacker to defend my life? Yes. I'll do my best not to kill him/her. I don't have weapons apart from my well-maintained long fingernails.
Is saving the human race and all biodiversity and ecosystems not worth fighting for as if defending your life? Does there come a time when if nothing gets done, it is too late? Is it already too late?
Will justification for the violence against rainforest destroyers come? Is it already justified?
the above is meant as philosophical contemplation and not serious.
I think this is a persuasion game rather than by force
It is not a game and persuasion has clearly not worked. Nothing is happening, fossil fuel investments and exploration continues and our emissions keep on growing year on year.
That's why I suggested deadly force. Of course it wasn't serious because it would be like declaring war on the U.S.A. and most of the western world. They protect the evil corporations.
If the populus is aware of climate change and it's consequences than they will accept measures such as taxing carbon and supporting alternatives
- Taxing carbon?
When? James Hansen proposed it. Bill Clinton proposed it. Is it a fast enough effect? Is it continuing BAU? Continuing uncontrolled markets and further growth?
- Supporting alternatives?
My alternative is not being considered and it is extremely cheap:
Use less of everything; live frugal; de-growth.
This alternative is not being considered because it goes directly against the all-destroying economic/financial growth dogma. The dogma/box from which people cannot think outside of. Another 'bubble'.
If not they will just vote for the other party.
The general populace will not vote for the best long term policies but for their personal short term advantages.
In my interpretation, your last sentence boils down to: We have technology so we will survive.
Please be aware that only an extremely small part of humans has the capacity to make new technology. The majority just uses the stuff and can't understand it or repair it.
When civilisation has collapsed, modern tech is not working (without electricity) and all old technology is lost in the past 100 years. Good luck with surviving in completely degraded living nature/ecosystems when looking for food whilst severe weather from AGW will give much uncertainty and anxiety (no more news and satelite information from the Internet, can you imagine?).
Insectageddon alone should make you scared and make you pause to start thinking deep and long. There are a plethora of simultaneous interacting other *-ageddons.
What would you do without electricity? Remember that gas, phones and internet won't work either. Try to think that scenario through a couple of months.
The challenge in my understanding is to NOT use technology if not absolutely necessary and then use the lowest tech that can do the job.
Human's powerful fantasies coupled with technology are its Achilles' heel because it gives it supposed supremacy over other lifeforms. And that is the beginning of the end: Total destruction. That is where we are now.