As an example, large parts of Florida are predicted to become completely submerged by the end of the century. So why don't activists fighting against climate change set up billboards in Miami warning people that their houses are at risk? Similarly it's expected that large parts of New York will go underwater within a few decades, so why not push New Yorkers to fight against climate change by reminding them of the future?

Currently most activism is based around an abstract "2 degrees temperature increase" or "more heat waves" or "bigger hurricanes", which fails to explain the negative effects on specific locations.

  • 8
    Why would something bad in 80 years bother Floridians now?
    – JJJ
    Sep 22, 2019 at 20:10
  • @JJJ presumably you'd care more if it was about the future of Miami rather than something abstract or a warning about the fate of a remote country Sep 22, 2019 at 20:13
  • There's enough people going around that won't believe this stuff until they see it. Things might move when the US loses Miami due to it losing its water supply. Until that happens, well... Sep 23, 2019 at 2:58
  • I think this question should better asked to these climate change activists. Till then, you're actively asking for an opinion.
    – Adriano
    Sep 23, 2019 at 4:14
  • @Adriano how come this question isn't opinion based then? Sep 23, 2019 at 4:43

1 Answer 1


Climate change is a global problem with global causes and effects.

Florida residents have no way to cause or stop the partial flooding of Florida, they need the help of Texans, Californians, and for that matter Chinese and Nigerians and many, many more. If climate activists were to tell local residents, "do this or bad things will happen locally," that would be wrong. The real message is "everybody has to do this or bad things will happen globally."

Climate deniers would pounce on the local message and claim that if there is nothing to be prevented locally, the sacrifice is unnecessary.

  • Presumably there would be different campaigns in Texas, California, China and Nigeria. Otherwise the effects of climate change remain illusory and hard to grasp. Sep 23, 2019 at 5:48
  • @JonathanReez, the problem would be the simple question: "If you do all that, eat meat only once a week, use public transport to commute, live in a smaller flat without air conditioning, could you save Florida?" The honest answer is "No." The only way to save Florida is to save the world in a worldwide, collective effort.
    – o.m.
    Sep 23, 2019 at 17:01
  • Sure, but in theory having everyone on the planet eat no meat and use less electricity could save Florida. So at least Floridians would be on board with supporting worldwide measures such as the Paris Accords. As-is all the climate warnings are very much abstract and easy to ignore as "other people's problems". Sep 23, 2019 at 17:24
  • 1
    @JonathanReez, the environmentalists do have science on their side. A bad idea to squander that with inaccurate claims and promises.
    – o.m.
    Sep 23, 2019 at 17:37
  • 1
    I think this answer is naive and misses the point of the question. I really doubt people in Florida really care if all of China ends up under water or not. People care more about things that directly affect them, not so much about things that don't.
    – Andy
    Sep 24, 2019 at 0:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .