That’s a great point. I hadn’t thought about it quite that way before. Thanks.

I had to think about this a bit. Ultimately, I still can’t think of any historical precedents where a people reacted proactively to a threat with relatively unknown consequences (to the individual). Maybe I’m missing something.

While it does no harm (and in fact probably makes sense) to invest in multiple strategies to fight climate change as a society, I have to admit that I don’t think attempting to change people’s minds regarding climate change is the most effectual. Consider that not only do you have to convince the “Western” world (which already has a high standard of living) to reduce emissions, you also have to somewhat repress development of nations which are striving to industrialize and will almost certainly be emitting more greenhouse and toxic gases in the future. See China, India, Africa, etc.

I agree that blaming consumers is counter-productive to the goal of convincing society to be more sustainable, but given the limited time we have, technologies like carbon capture, fusion, massive solar/wind, should be the core strategy in ameliorating the effects of climate change.

Slowing/stopping/reversing climate change could be achieved much more readily if “people” (in general or specifically activists) were willing to accept some sacrifice, which is to say decrease in their standard of living.

However, I think that’s a third rail that no one wants to touch. See “veganism is too hard”, “biking takes too long”, “I’m really busy, I have to use plastic water bottles”, etc. There are of course people for which it really is not possible, but also many where they are just unwilling to sacrifice.

Therefore, the only way to maintain our current standard of living while ameliorating climate change is through rapid technological advancement. I’m not hopeful.