Raw LLM Responses

I'd guess it's because how that stewardship is actually sold to people. It's sold to us by two main sources. The first one is the rich and influential, who are the worst offenders and don't do what they preach. The old saying: "Watch what they do, not what they say" applies here. If the threat was real and immediate, they wouln't continue acting like they do. Therefore the threat isn't real or it is wildly exaggerated. It is viewed as a red piece of cloth they wave in front of the masses to get them to bull rush in the direction the rich and influental want the public to go. The second source is the scientific community. The problem here is, that the science isn't being fully presented to the public. It is both simplified and altered to be more click-baity. Media prefers to present the unlikely worst case scenario, instead of the likely moderate scenario. This leads to the science presented to often proved later to be wrong or inaccurate. That causes the public to percieve the actual underlying science of being wrong or inaccurate. Once you get betrayed by such reporting often enough, you justifiably stop getting excited about environmental "emergencies" the news report. I think support for proper environmental stewardship is wide, but people have become more aware of how their concerns are being used as a tool to manipulate them. This shitting over the issue is then not directed against the environmental stewardship. It's directed more against the hyperbole and manipulation surrounding it.