Attitudes to Climate Change - A Drip-Feed Approach?

The question posed by many environmentalists today is what it will take for us, as a human race, to be jolted out of our complacency towards the environment and what will be required before we are prepared to make sacrifices for the planet. There is certainly a large enough scientific consensus that climate change is not only occurring, but is a problem, if not a threat. Yet, we now seem to be stuck in a rut as to what the best policy is towards reducing carbon-emissions. In fact, some even argue that we need not reduce our emissions provided we can offset that pollution by planting trees to absorb carbon etc. although the people who hold this opinion tend to be in the minority.
Campaigners such as Al Gore, with his documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' and others are certainly contributing to a changing of attitudes towards climate change. Unfortunately these documentaries and campaigns, however effective or informative they are, are still failing to provide the dramatic changes to spending and consumption patterns that are needed to tackle this problem. Raising awareness is obviously a key to this issue, but as of yet it seems to be doing precious little to alter our lifestyles.
So what do we need to do? What needs to happen in order to produce the dramatic turnaround that we are told so often that we need. One obvious of guaranteeing success would be a policy of tax-rises for CO2 emitting products, with tax-breaks for low-emissions or carbon-neutral products such as cars or generating power. The biggest factor in any individuals calculations is the relative costs involved, and price is a massive factor in any transaction. Look at the lengths many superstores go to to ensure that their products are cheaper than others, and the success of value-stores over those that cannot offer either quality or price. As Henry Ford said in his famous maxim:
'There is one rule for the industrialist; make the best quality of goods possible, at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.'
In fact, cost seems to be the most highly regarded of these three principles; the others being largely disregarded by some firms.
If so much emphasis is put upon costs, therefore, it would seem obvious that one way to tackle CO2 emissions would be to implement policies of charging the polluters for the damage they cause, and rewarding those who lower or annul their emissions. Nevertheless, this policy seems to be a political hot-potato, particularly in the UK. Politicians are extremely reluctant to promote any policies that present any tax-rises, regardless of the benefits that this would accrue to the global community, presumably because of the considerable risk of alienating a substantial portion of the electorate. Furthermore, any minute legislation or guidelines that would begin to change habits towards consumption in this country, such as proposals for large reductions in the numbers of cars on the roads in 2030, for example, would also be avoided like the plague, presumably for the same reasons.
Therefore, politicians must gain the political will to step in, or the public must gain the motivation to act of their own accord. Given the present ease of buying cars, appliances, personal computers and the ability to travel relatively cheaply, it seems unlikely that the majority are prepared to give up these practices. The luxury of being able to spend in such an extravagant way has become so ingrained in our culture that not only do we enjoy living such lifestyles, we get withdrawal symptoms every time these privileges are denied to us. Think of the pandemonium that would occur if we found suddenly that only one car was allowed per household.
Consequently, because we have little political or personal will to act on such matters, it does seem to be the case that a gradual acceptance of the damage we are doing to our planet, and a drip-feed of documentaries, books and reports is perhaps the most effective way of communicating to the majority the best ways that we can tackle the problems that threaten our planet, rather than attempting to convince the world into committing themselves to decisive action, despite the fact that that could be what is most needed in order to save our world.