We are morally unequipped to deal with climate change.

[ImVegan]

1) Climate change is a real threat to the lives of many people around the world, primarily in poorer countries (business as usual will result in loss of life of hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of people perhaps, over decades).

2) We cannot stop climate change without great material sacrifice, from wealthy countries especially.

3) If given the choice to save the lives of people geographically or temporally separated from themselves for moderate financial sacrifice, people generally do not.

And therefore given that the lives lost will be separated from the people needed to make material sacrifices, this will not happen, business will continue as usual for the most part, and many will perish.

Evidence for assumption #1: WHO analysis of increased mortality due to climate change: google "Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s", first link at WHO(dot)int

Evidence for assumption #2: Bloomberg article detailing annual costs: google "fighting-climate-change-comes-with-2-5-trillion-price-tag". I believe the IPCC came to very similar conclusions in their sr15 report. I'm aware that there are more nuanced cost benefit analyses of climate change mitigation which attempt to account for the costs of not mitigating climate change, but the costs of climate change are largely in the future, whereas the costs of mitigation would be immediate, and assumption 3 deals with that.

For assumption 3, I believe Peter Singer makes a very good case for making at least moderate financial sacrifice for the sake of other in "famine affluence and morality" and many other utilitarian arguments can be made for that. Despite those arguments, international aid is a tiny proportion of spending in wealthy countries, and most people donate next to nothing to save the lives of others, even though there are many evidence based and effective causes. The effective altruism movement is growing in this vein, but most people do not feel obliged to donate significant amounts of their money to help others. It's seen as morally good, but not necessary.

In conclusion, climate change will cause people to suffer who aren't connected to the people that must make the necessary sacrifices to prevent that, and because people don't follow that pattern of behaviour for other actions of similar nature, they won't for climate change.

[LuckyR]

1) Climate change is a real threat to the lives of many people around the world, primarily in poorer countries (business as usual will result in loss of life of hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of people perhaps, over decades).

2) We cannot stop climate change without great material sacrifice, from wealthy countries especially.

3) If given the choice to save the lives of people geographically or temporally separated from themselves for moderate financial sacrifice, people generally do not.

And therefore given that the lives lost will be separated from the people needed to make material sacrifices, this will not happen, business will continue as usual for the most part, and many will perish.

Evidence for assumption #1: WHO analysis of increased mortality due to climate change: google "Quantitative risk assessment of the effects of climate change on selected causes of death, 2030s and 2050s", first link at WHO(dot)int

Evidence for assumption #2: Bloomberg article detailing annual costs: google "fighting-climate-change-comes-with-2-5-trillion-price-tag". I believe the IPCC came to very similar conclusions in their sr15 report. I'm aware that there are more nuanced cost benefit analyses of climate change mitigation which attempt to account for the costs of not mitigating climate change, but the costs of climate change are largely in the future, whereas the costs of mitigation would be immediate, and assumption 3 deals with that.

For assumption 3, I believe Peter Singer makes a very good case for making at least moderate financial sacrifice for the sake of other in "famine affluence and morality" and many other utilitarian arguments can be made for that. Despite those arguments, international aid is a tiny proportion of spending in wealthy countries, and most people donate next to nothing to save the lives of others, even though there are many evidence based and effective causes. The effective altruism movement is growing in this vein, but most people do not feel obliged to donate significant amounts of their money to help others. It's seen as morally good, but not necessary.

In conclusion, climate change will cause people to suffer who aren't connected to the people that must make the necessary sacrifices to prevent that, and because people don't follow that pattern of behaviour for other actions of similar nature, they won't for climate change.

At the risk of sounding trite, you seem to have a firm grip on the obvious. Though it is possible to come to the identical conclusion citing psychological principles and without delving into morality.

[Jklint]

Morality hardly has anything to do with it since were never really moral creatures in the first place. We invariably succumb to expediency at the expense of any so-called morality or simply cause morality itself to be expedient for our purposes.

Be it as it may. When defining the "point of no return" there are two inflections. The first derives from expediency itself since it was never expedient to do anything about the problem even when it first became apparent. As everyone knows the longer one waits in treating a disease the more difficult it is to cure.

Second the near certainty of this already happening or having happened leads to the conclusion of most climatologists who may not know precisely when this non-retroactive event occurs but that such a transition inevitably proceeds by its own logic...one that may lead to vast declines in population across the entire planet.

The problem and tragedy now seems to be that our institutions are slower to change than the climate itself.

[Ginkgo]

I am a climatic activist with Fridays for Future, and I must say the reality is as harsh as you paint it.

We do care about others, empathy is one of humanity’s greatest virtue. We do get sad when we hear that children are dying on the other side of the world. However, some people quickly discard that feeling and keep on with their lives as if they never knew. Maybe because that knowledge has no survival value, or maybe because it can threaten our happiness and therefore it triggers an egoistical response which enables quickly forgetting about it. Thus, the problem is that awareness is usually transitory.
So rather than unequipped, I’d say we are simply drawn to ignorance, to oblivion. (Is that part of human nature? Ignorance vs. reason, I wonder which side the scale would tip in to).

That is why it is so important to rise our voices and demand a revolution. Or we will keep ignoring the problems (as you mentioned, not just the climate crisis, but also poverty, injustice…) till it’s too late (it already became too late to prevent the climate crisis, but we can still slow it down and reduce its impacts). Scientific facts and philosophy are the best tools we have at our disposal.

We don’t need people to hear, we need them to act.

[gad-fly]

On Imvegan's first point, the impact of climate change would be more severe in developed than in undeveloped countries. In the short term, harsher and more frequent cyclones can cost billions in oil-rich Mexican Bay, comparing with millions in beaches in the Caribbean Sea. In the long term, rising sea level would drain the financial resources of coastal metropolis like HongKong and New York with their parking floors below sea level. Thus "primarily in poorer countries" and "business as usual" are not appropriate.

On the second point, sacrifice should be shared by all countries, rich and poor, proportionally. Otherwise agreement can never be reached and accepted by all, and we would be doomed around by perpetual argument.

On the third and most important point, it is unfair to blame taxpayers in developed countries for being selfish. They do what they can afford for charity, and there are many causes, such as the Amazon Rain Forest and poverty. It is for their elected government to take action on their behalf.

How about each country devoting 0.1% of their GDP on climate change? Wouldn't that have some impact? If so, it is up to us to exert pressure on the politicians representing us, but not to dig into our empty wallet.