Also maybe theyre adults?

Those are all valid points but I dont think thats what OPs question was about. They asked about effective ways to fight climate change. Not doing anything can never be an answer to that. Whether or not it makes sense to spend your hard earned money on other peoples behalf is a different question.

Also, no we are not doomed. Yes, climate change will have a huge impact on humankind, but earth wont randomly explode or something. Humankind will adjust to higher temperatures and more frequent natural disasters, but the extent to which this will affect everyone can still be minimized. The poor will be fucked the hardest, 'accepting our fate' and not doing anything will cost millions more lives than it could.

Yes Im aware that 99% is not realistic, I was exaggerating with the 'hope' part. But even if it is just 50%, that was not the point. Most cartoons and news articles arent resonating with more than a small percentage of the population.

I actually made a separate comment with my suggestions^^. I think political change and research would have the most impact, so my proposal would be donating to organizations like FCA or CATF (which btw I already do with monthly payments to a climate fund because Ive been asking myself a similar question in the past)

As I havent seen a single actually effective answer:

Donate it to organisations fighting climate change. For example FCA (researching climate friendly ways of producing cement, steel, fuels), gfi (researching food alternatives), CATF (tries to influence political changes)

Wont have much impact unfortunately. Climate zones are shifting already, those trees will die before growing up because they would belong further north by then.

This is bs, please dont spread misinformation like this. With your logic, we should all stop voting because a single vote doesnt have impact.

Every person is responsible for their own decisions and 10k from a single person have a huge relative impact. If every person with 10k available would use those for fighting climate change, we would have overcome it already.

Unfortunately investing money does veeeeeeeery little against climate change. Think like 0.1% of your invested sum. The money you invest still goes to shareholders, just those of companies that meet certain criteria.

Of course it is better (i.e. has bigger impact) than investing elsewhere, dont get me wrong. But investing doesnt promote actual changes. For someone to make changes in politics or public opinion, they need to be paid. Spending the money on such projects is the way to make actual change.

Source: my spouse works in ESG scoring at a big bank

Yes of course, Im not trying to invalidate genderneutral pronouns. If someone wishes to be adressed in a certain way replacing the words him/her, sure. But 'I' is not a gendered pronoun (at least to my understanding). Its the single universal word used to talk about oneself in the 1st person, isnt it? It is genderneutral already, so why would you feel the need to replace that?

I would hope around 99%

Genuine question coz Im not american. Whats the benefit of replacing a completely genderneutral word like 'I' with something else? Seems to me its just ragebait, do people actually use pronouns like that?

Also, is it even gramatically correct to use 3rd person speech when talking about yourself? Isnt that just confusing everyone?

I dont think you know what ur talking about. Russia couldnt even invade a single country on their own, proven by them trying exactly that and failing miserably.