Climate Shame v. Denial

A current headline notes that Greta Thunberg climate-shamed Senate Democrats. As a result, we may wonder how the interplay of shame v. denial will play out politically with regard to climate.

In general, if someone is in denial of a problem that someone else feels motivated by shame to address, the result is either pity or ridicule by the denier.

The ashamed person, in turn, feels disrespected by the pity/denial, which leads to greater motivation to convince the denier, so that they can grasp the reason to feel shame.

This would be a ridiculous and somewhat comic state of affairs, except it's a tragic deadlock that is costing time for the long, uphill effort required to reform industrialism and thus restore natural climate mechanisms.

It begs the question why those who are convinced of the need for climate reform can't simply shift their economic participation in a way that effectuates the changes they seek.

Is the free market of a republic actually less demand-driven than we like to believe? In other words, are consumers/citizens actually economically impaired/obstructed from the free pursuit of climate reform, and if so how?

Once it can be established how individual liberty is obstructed from making the choices that are required for restoring natural climate, the government could be held accountable for failing to protect and defend individual liberty.

Until that happens, however, the question is going to remain why individuals who understand climate don't act independently to model reforms that must be adopted more broadly for climate to restore.