I think "people" aren't given enough credit. They're actually pretty smart. They know that, when they're questioned by a surveyor, they can feel better about

I think "people" aren't given enough credit. They're actually pretty smart. They know that, when they're questioned by a surveyor, they can feel better about themselves by claiming that they'd be willing pay to address climate change. They know they can get that psychological benefit completely for free without having to do anything other than just answering the question in a certain way. So that makes surveys about the issue seem pretty meaningless; their outcomes have very little to do with the actual issue being surveyed. Also, people are actually pretty smart because they know that every other individual in the economic arena will act in their own best interest. So they make the correct decision of saving money for themselves. That's exactly why any sort of individual brow beating always strikes me as totally misguided and counterproductive. People are not likely to spontaneously move to solve such a large problem when doing so puts them at an individual loss. It doesn't matter if you think that sort of behavior is immoral or unethical. On the other hand, it seems to me that large organizations such as corporations and governments have many more incentives to mitigate large scale issues like this for a couple of reasons: 1) They can more easily coordinate since there are fewer organizations of that size that have to cooperate; 2) They are in a better position to quantify the risk of failing to act. There are probably plenty of corporate strategists that are starting to raise the alarm about a possible future world in which it's impossible to make any money as a result of a climate catastrophe. I've never really been able to get on board with ways of arguing about climate change that fit the mold of this article. Individuals simply are not going to act to solve this problem. Get over it and move on.