Industries such as shipping and others, that rely heavily on the use fossil fuels, have grown up to support that Culture, over the last 100 years and are still growing in the same way today. That alone should indicate something.
To change the culture of consumption of the human race will take much more that 30 years in my humble opinion, and it is unlikely that myself and others, here, will be around to see it, if it does happen, so the point is somewhat moot.
Then you have countries in turmoil, countries with no or broken social system, countries without functioning health systems, countries where people are starving or barely scraping enough together each day to feed their families, an expanding gap between those who have and have not, child labour and trafficking, counties with high unemployment, countries that are virtually bankrupt due to ineffective and incompetent governments, organizations that steal or waste money, all of which impacts on the daily lives of most "every day people", and what they perceive as their immediate priorities in life.
They have to live now with their struggles and not in the future.
I just wonder how many of these "every day people" even understand the term "Climate Change" or even care as they try to work out where their next meal is coming from. A recent quote:
“You'll never solve climate change by asking people to consume less. And climate change advocates often advocate using less and consuming less as one potential solution to climate change — degrowth, it's often called. This idea is quixotic.
I don’t think it’s realistic to say that people are utterly going to change their lifestyle because of concerns about climate.
You can have a cultural revolution where you’re trying to throw everything up, you can create a North Korean-type situation where the states in control. Other than immense central authority to have people just obey, I think the collective action problem is just completely not solvable.
Most individuals are not going to change their individual behavior in ways that make them less comfortable for the benefit of a global problem.
Anyone who says that we will tell people to stop eating meat, or stop wanting to have a nice house, and we’ll just basically change human desires, I think that that’s too difficult. You can make a case for it. But I don’t think it’s realistic for that to play an absolutely central role.
Even if those countries and individuals who have enough abundance in their life and are able to cut back, that won’t be enough reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to sufficiently rein in climate change.
Just having a few rich countries, a few rich companies and a few rich individuals buy their way out so they can say they’re not part of the problem, that has nothing to do with solving the problem.
There are a slew of other issues competing for attention and dollars, including the global pandemic, rising health care costs, aiding poor countries for issues besides climate change, and the war in Ukraine, too.
People who are in the climate space may not realize how many things are competing for the modest amount of increased resources that society has and that not that many people are prepared to be worse off because of climate requirements.
The solution is creating better technological alternatives where it is the same price or cheaper to accomplish the same goal in a climate-conscious way, to make meaningful change on climate change, that green premium has to slowly reduced and then eliminated in all sectors of the economy.
When people, we love your climate stuff, because we can tell Putin we don’t need him. I say, ‘Yeah, 10 years from now. Call him up and tell him you don’t need him. Between now and then, the European Union may need to fall back on fossil fuels.
In the long run, finding new ways of supporting people is the only feasible solution. I’m looking at what the world has to do to get to zero, not using climate as a moral crusade”.
End of quote
pipoz4444
