Do you think that the following quote is relevant to climate change? (Read more)?

Yes, it's definitely relevant, but it's not just complacency. Addressing anthropogenic climate change requires people to have an interest in a greater good than just for themselves, and many people simply don't have that.

-

In other words, "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to stand by and do nothing." Word to that effect were stated by many men.

Translation: The GW activists are daily bombarding us with an unproven and unprovable claim that the Earth is burning up. There are a few real scientists that disagree and they are being shouted down. As Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

So you can see, it is the 'environmentalists' who want to shut down any information exchange and make the average person and the person in the know 'complacent'. then when they have buffaloed enough people they can go to a one world government.

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced — a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."

First these evil people will make you complacent. Then their stated purpose is to enslave you. Is that clear enough?

Although I have a good answer since it explains the whole situation, Billy's answer is actually more in line with your question.

We need to stop being complacent about those that lie for a green agenda that has nothing to do with being "green". It is about pushing a leftist socialist agenda that has FAILED every time it is has been tried (Read more). The left isn't about saving the planet. They are about enslaving the planet. Most are too stupid to realize it.

The Earth heating a few more degrees will actually increase crop yields making good food cheaper in America and making food more abundant in starving countries. The Northwest passage has also been open so shipping will also become cheaper as a dozen ships went from New York to China last summer by going around Northern Canada. In short the polar bear population may decrease but what do they do for us anyway? The benefits far outweigh the cons and it's foolish to think we're the cause of this warming anyway.

After all, he Earth cooled on it's own for the ice age and then warmed back up. Many scientists believe it never stopped warming and that it's been continuously warming ever since. Just a thought

With global warming, we will not know exactly what happens until it happens. But we do know that humans are causing Earth to warm. It is dishonest and immoral people, not complacency, that is preventing action to stop global warming.

For an issue like climate change, the threat is long-term. It's not immediate. It's very hard to persuade politicians and the public to make a sacrifice now for the benefit of people 50 years from now in remote parts of the world. If you apply the standard economic discount rate, you'd write off what happens after 2050. If that's your assumption, then you don't prioritize climate change. You decide that it's less important to deal with climate change than to help the world's poor in more immediate ways.

But if you take a different view and say, "This is the context where we must in effect have a low discount rate, because we should care about the life chances of a baby born now who'll be alive in the 22nd century. We should be prepared to pay an insurance premium now to remove a potential threat from someone at the end of the century." That's what conventional climate policy is aiming to do it, but it only makes sense if you are prepared to take this very long-term view.

Martin Rees.

Edit for Dirac.

I've always been an admirer or Rees, he's one smart cookie. However, it's rapidly becoming apparent that it's not just a long-term problem--we are already beginning to see devastating effects from it."

I am not disagreeing with you. Politicians think in election cycles. and won't act until there is sufficient pressure from the electorate. Big oil knows that and their tactic is the same as big tobacco, they even employ many of the same people.

Granted there's a bit of complacency but mostly there's laziness, stupidity and/or corruption.

When Trump dismissed those reports from the IPCC and his own government! 😂 He clearly hadn't read or considered them, he obviously doesn't even understand the greenhouse effect, he's operating on sheer unadulterated undiluted stupidity.

No

Pretty close to it.