I think climate change is a good example where it’s not socially acceptable to discuss the problem in terms that capture the severity or the small margins there are for effective actions. Much effective actions against climate change are not ”politically realistic” (eg banning animal farming, eliminating private car ownership, building railways, walkable cities, redistribution of resources). Thus, to not be put in the doomer box, you basically have to subscribe to the ”realistic” option of tech optimism (ie, we will be saved by continuing to burn more oil because it will lead to unimaginable breakthroughs that make us unaccountable to the laws of physics).

I’m exaggerating, but I think you get the gist. The the demand that discussions to be ”constructive” takes a lot of the most realistic options off the table in favor of protecting the status quo at all cost. I’m less worried about overt climate deniers at this point – at least they don’t confuse the issue – but more of the neo liberal climate ”believers” that insist on doing nothing or deferring doing something, lest it disturb the oil or auto industries.

If solving climate change keeps coming in the guise of chopping down rain forests to build highways to make it easier for oil people to get from their private jets at the airport to making deals while schmoozing with the political elites, then doomerism is the only rational take on the issue.