Coronavirus vs. Global Warming

Coronavirus:
A national emergency is declared. A lot of money is being spent to fight it. There are changes to businesses, lifestyles and so on.
Getting the virus mainly affects people over 60. Younger people aren’t affected much.

Global Warming:
Will mainly affect younger people. Older people will die off before we get the major effects.
Not much is being done about it.

Is this a “who would win in a fight” thing? Because the winner needs to face off against earthquakes.

Global warming is a plot by old people to deprive younger people of the ice floes necessary to cast them adrift on.

A short-term, obvious issue is always going to get more attention than a long-term problem in which any single event can easily be blamed on something else.

Is this a stupid way for the human race to behave? Currently, yes. Over nearly all of our evolutionary history, no. If the tiger’s about to eat you, you need to pay attention to that NOW; whether your best place to find something for dinner might be underwater three years from now is going to get less of your attention, and any creature that doesn’t think that way isn’t going to be alive in three years to get dinner, because they’ll have long since been dinner themselves. [ETA: it’s true that thinking that way may get all of us killed in the long run. But it’s still going to be a battle to get most people to react otherwise.]

Is it a conspiracy on the part of old people to screw up young people? No, it is not.

Most of the changes I’ve heard about are supposed to be temporary. What changes can we make for just a few weeks that will combat global warming?

I’m not to clear on what it is, but it apparently is based upon toilet paper.
~VOW

Yes–the changes needed to combat the coronavirus are miniscule compared to what we need to do to combat global warming. The two problems are apples and Appalachians.