It's a topic bound to cause division around your breakfast table, over a drink at your local, or on your favourite social media forum.
Global warming, climate change, a climate emergency (and yes the terms have changed as our understanding of the ever-increasing impacts evolved over the decades).
That the world will be a harsher place for our children than it was for our parents seems abundantly clear (and that goes for more than just the climate situation).
There are those who would argue - and vehemently at that - that the climate has always been changing and that it's not humankind that's to blame.
Of course we are. To deny that is to deny the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence and worldwide consensus of opinion.
We say scientific evidence here, because what you've read, copied and pasted off a Google search, or heard via ultra-conservative talkback shock-jocks paid to stir controversy is not "evidence".
The issue is not whether the climate is changing, it's what we, as intelligent (mostly) creatures in an advanced age, capable of higher thought and manipulation of our environments, can do about it. Stuff our predecessors couldn't, even if they'd had the will to do so.
Perhaps you still can't fathom that harsher droughts, longer bushfire danger periods, more extreme storm activity, warming ocean temperatures and the threat of rising sea levels are a result of long-term human behaviour and activity. That's your right.
But even then, surely just letting it happen and hoping for better days ahead for your children is not an answer.
Where's the harm in considering the environment in all our decision making, our development and planning for the future? What damage would be done by responsibly transitioning away from an over-reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels? To say we can't make a difference is the worst kind of hot air.