Things are somewhat quite simple. There are two approaches to climate change.
The first and the most common is that we have to grow the economy in order to pay for change and a more equitable economy. It’s a great opportunity.
The second is that we have to radically (enough that many institutions goods and service quickly demise) slow and stop what we are doing.
Many people who think we need major change still assume that they will continue to live in the same house, drive the same car, and go to the same office. Where are you in the choice between these two? (not necessarily a choice but like an earthquake, forcing?
Does seem reasonable to read recent flooding and heat domes as something more than "just the weather", more like signals from the future which demand our attention.
The third scenario is that a huge climate disaster or war forces a complete rethink. If we don’t reach nuclear annihilation, a reset is possible. If nuclear war erupts, then we may see a revival of nature even as humanity and civilisation corrodes.