Statement like hers only hurt the climate change action message. One sure way to drive away nearly anybody who thinks climate change is a problem but doesn't think about it much... is to tell them if they don't up and change everything about their lifestyle right now, the world is gonna end in 12 years.
Also, you need to point to evidence that is not sensationalist or easy to poke holes in, no matter how wrong those counter-arguments might be. The endangered Pacific nations are a good example.
Many of these low Pacific atolls are stuck between sinking land and rising seas. They are pumping too much ground water due to overpopulation. The lense of fresh water that sits on top of the salt water under the land gets depleted and begins to turn brackish and the land subsides. On top of that, warmer oceans lead to thermal expansion which causes sea level rise. What is easier for these island nations? Convincing Americans, Chinese, Russians, Indians, and Brazilians to dramatically curtail greenhouse gas emissions? Or find sustainable water sources?
Ultimately this is about something bad happening to the land these people live on, and their seeking a scapegoat to deflect responsibility for a problem that is half their own fault. Even so, wealthy nations have a responsibility to help these nations cope. Providing funding for rainwater collection and filtration to reduce ground water pumping is a no-brainer.
As for this idea that there are these "tipping points" always 10-15 years in the future if we don't do something NOW and that the politically arrived at temperature increase limit represents some unholy number that if you cross it, the whole thing goes straight to hell... is all just activists at lavish conferences negotiating science.
Then there is the issue of power production:
We will *never* power our economy with windmills and solar panels. Ever. They are supplementary and not reliable. When wind power becomes a significant source of electricity, one storm or one calm spell is enough to black out the grid. And don't give me "but BATTERIES" or "but IMPROVEMENTS"... yes... this is true. Still doesn't matter. We need a non-carbon based base energy source that isn't dependent on the weather.
Nuclear, in the short term, along with a stratoshield. Long term solar is more ideal, but we don't have time to wait for it to be viable.
