AIBU to feel people are far too complacent about climate change?

[Quibble123]

I should probably say up front that I work in this field, so this isn't based on a few headlines or a panic after a hot week. My job has involved working with scientists, policymakers and communities for years, I have a PhD in social policy (focused on social action and social change), so I'm fairly well immersed in the evidence. If anything, it's made me less alarmist, not more.
But I honestly feel like I'm watching two different realities.
The impacts we've been warned about for decades are now happening with increasing regularity, yet most people seem remarkably unbothered. We have a hot spell, floods somewhere else, another wildfire, another record broken... and everyone just seems to shrug and move on.
I'm not expecting people to spend every day worrying about it. Life is busy enough. But I genuinely don't understand why there isn't far more public outcry and pressure on politicians to treat this as the priority it surely has to be. People do talk about the consequences (such as wildfires etc) but the discussion on the causes (fossil fuels, over consumption etc) remain largely untouched - when we should be absolutely raging!
Maybe people feel powerless. Maybe we've just adapted to each new "once in a generation" event until it becomes normal.
I don't know. I just find the lack of urgency really hard to get my head around. This is the single biggest threat to our current and our children's futures - it could literally kill them - and we seem to be walking blindfolded....

I'm not complacent.

I'm resigned.

There's very little more that I can do personally to make a difference.

And honestly, if humankind is the cause of the issue, them maybe it's ok if we get wiped out because of it. If we no longer exist, the earth will heal.

1. A lot of people don't connect the dots. They really don't.
   They don't link a heatwave to the climate crisis - they just respond to it by buying some extra sun cream and having a moan about how hot it is, then it passes. The bigger picture just isn't on everyone's radar.

2. A lot of people will only really 'get it' when it is really affecting their own lives detrimentally. I'm sure that people whose homes have actually been flooded or damaged by fires care more than they used to, because they have felt the impact. But that's still a relatively small number of people in the UK.

You are not being unreasonable. Also a disclaimer I do not pretend to be an expert. However, I have listened to numerous interviews from Greenpeace and the Green Party over the years and one thing struck me time and time again. They call out the bullshit around how carbon change has become an individuals’ problem to solve. Whilst it’s great that we recycle and should try and cut down are carbon footprints, they say time and time again unless huge economies like china etc and big tech companies and industry start changing, it won’t matter what we do!

YANBU. People just ignore it and worry about other more minor things that affect t their lives more now but will be irrelevant one day soon. Depressing.

The government on the one hand want net zero but on the other want to rip up the countryside to build millions of homes. It makes no sense. Wide tree lined roads used to be built, people used to do gardening for pleasure. We now have cramped estates built instead with tiny gardens, no room for trees….

Are you not a tiny bit concerned about food prices? Like potatoes being 40% more or the worst carrot and broccoli harvest ever or having to import stuff like lettuce that we normally grow.

They absolutely don’t do zero. This is just lies.

Approximately 69% of the world's countries (137 out of 198 national governments, including the European Union) have formally adopted net-zero emissions targets.

According to the latest data tracked by the Net Zero Tracker and independent climate transparency reports, these national commitments cover a vast majority of the planet's economic and human footprint:

• Global Emissions: 74% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
• Global Economy: 77% of global Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
• Global Population: 79% of the world's population.

Roughly 67% of these national targets are legally binding or written directly into active policy strategies. At least 8 small nations—including Bhutan, Suriname, Guyana, Gabon, Madagascar, Comoros, Panama, and Niue—have already achieved net-zero or carbon-negative status, largely due to dense forest cover and lower industrial activity.

Re major emitters 19 of the G20 nations retain net-zero commitments. For example, the European Union aims for 2050, China targets 2060, and India targets 2070. China is world leading in renewables.

This is a 'thing': look at work done on 'through-topias' ('thru-topias') -positive future-casting which creates the kinds of outcomes we can imagine, dream of, hope for and strive towards in literature, televised drama, cinema etc. I heard Rupert Reed give a great talk about this a couple of years ago.

They aren’t carrying on regardless. There is a long way to go but to say they’re carrying on regardless to make yourself feel better is false.

China has a 2060 target and is a global clean energy superpower.In March 2026, China passed its first comprehensive Environmental Code which legally anchors its long-term decarbonization pathway. Driven by massive rollouts, fossil fuel-based power generation in China experienced its first drop in a decade. Wind, solar, and hydro now account for more than a third of the nation's total electricity production.

India formalized cautious 2035 climate and clean energy targets. The country continues to rapidly deploy non-fossil fuel capacity, aiming for it to supply 60% of its power infrastructure in the coming years. This year India rolled out its domestic carbon market. While analysts criticize the initial emissions limits as too lenient to force massive corporate overhauls, the framework serves as the structural foundation for future mandates.

The Kremlin maintains its official target of 2060 carbon neutrality, relying heavily on expanding its vast natural carbon sinks (Siberian forests) to absorb emissions rather than executing aggressive industrial phaseouts. Due to Western economic isolation, Russia has integrated its environmental modeling with its primary trading partners, actively coordinating with China on regional transregional emissions tracking and low-carbon industrial supply trades.

USA was on board before Trump and will be back on board when he’s gone.A future Democratic or pro-climate president will be very likely to rejoin international climate frameworks and reinstate federal decarbonization goals by executive action, mirroring the reversal seen between Trump's first and second terms. Numerous U.S. states, municipalities, and private corporations maintain independent net-zero and clean-energy targets regardless of federal policy.Renewable energy sources like solar and wind often remain cost-competitive with fossil fuels, preserving private sector investment in clean technology despite federal rollbacks.

I live in an affluent village & am continually baffled by people who:

• have just spent 100s of thousands on house reno and not included a) solar panels b) insulation c)underfloor heating ready for heat pump etc
• drive massive gas guzzling range rovers, landrover discovery etc, new every 3/4 years. No EVs despite most of their driving being short/local
• fly long haul 4/5 times a year on holiday
• rip out grass, trees, hedges etc in favour of astroturf & fences
• buy massive amounts of fast fashion& crap off temu

As a pp said, I think ordinary people have made changes over the years and climate is now on way more people's radars than before.
But ordinary people feel so powerless when global leaders , celebrities, the super wealthy just seem to carry on as though they aren't part of the problem & bear no responsibility.
Fgs, we have a new PM who is performatively creating a "Number 10 North" & flying on a private jet between Manchester & London. While I wash out & recycle my yoghurt pots...

And the huge push to use AI by big companies because it saves money and ups their profitability while being a disaster for the environment.
And the vested interests from influential middle Eastern countries for the world to still rely on fossil fuels.

The list goes on but governments & leaders rather than address these issues like to push it back on us ordinary folks - wash out more yoghurt pots, walk don't drive, buy second hand.
And it all feels so hopeless.

It’s concerning but many are more worried about feeding their children and paying bills.

There is a direct correlation between the rise in food prices and climate change though.
And that looks set to get worse.

About 'the government advertising': I grew up in a country where public service broadcasting included helpful messages such as a daily 'notice-board' section on the national tv station, broadcast during peak time, including prompts and behavioural nudges: limit drinking alcohol in front of children during seasonal celebrations, remember to pay your dog-licence fee on time, it's hunting season so follow these safety-tips if out on the woods etc, so I wouldn't bat an eyelid at the kind of helpful messaging you refer to. But an interesting trait I observe in the British population is that a large swathe hate nothing more that 'being told what to do', and will reject advice or direction as a knee-jerk thing simply because they feel 'told'. Even if the messaging is sound and on the best interests of people and planet.

There used to be a good publication called "Positive News" -I'm pretty sure there's still is. It was great, and platformed good international and national news items from an environmental, conservation, economic and social justice perspective.

YANBU.
People complain about how hot it is or how terrible the wildfires are.
Then tell you all about the trips abroad they have planned and they don't even see the correlation.
See also people's current response to the situation with COVID, repeat infections are causing long term health problems for many (eg increased risk of diabetes, cardiovascular issues etc) people tell you about all the new health problems they or their loved ones are developing, don't see the connection, shrug and carry on as they were before.
You're right, there should be massive political pressure on government, companies and employers for change. Also, where are the unions in this?
In the meantime choose your votes wisely and do what you reasonably can to reduce your carbon emissions - and spread of infections.

I agree with the previous posters who say that it’s to do with people feeling powerless.
Previously I’ve actively campaigned; cut down and made better choices and lifestyle changes; and supported policies that are designed to help but I’m jaded by the fact that, despite what we know and what science tells us, we have governments starting wars using infinite amounts of fuel and power and causing devastation; people are happily embracing AI with no concerns about the data centres and the amount of resources and water they take up. It just seems pointless trying to do the right thing as one person when actually the corporations and governments seem to care so little.
Whatever happens to humanity the earth will regenerate without us so we will get what we deserve sadly.

“Nature always finds a way” is the worst. It doesn’t and there are deserts that prove this. I disagree that people say they don’t believe because they feel powerless. They just don’t see what’s happening beyond their supermarket shelves.

Environmental issues have been derided, derailed by short term business accounting and ignored for generations.

All that is happening now has been predicted for many years. The inability to make connections and observe what’s going on is extraordinary, but what has really fouled things up is that whilst everything seemed ok, it was easy to dismiss warnings that it would not remain ok. Now it’s too late.

No government is going to hamstring their economy for net zero, seemingly apart from in Europe.
There were 40 million commercial flights in 2025.
37 million people went on cruises.
60 million diesel/petrol cars were built.
It’s no wonder people aren’t onboard with the climate crisis while all the excess continues.

Maybe this year’s summer will be a trigger point, but I doubt it.

Just based on the ever-increasing number of massive SUVs and hideous pick-up truck Hilux type vehicles that can't fit in a parking space (and then people driving them actually complaining that there's not enough parking/parking spaces are too small/there's too much wear on the roads when they're directly causing these problems), no, I think lots of people either don't believe in or don't care about any kind of potential to make changes. I don't have any hope for things improving.

Why just the Royal Family?

Swirly, I hear you and recognise what you describe. It is a really common response to reflecting on where we stand as individuals in the climate emergency. It is so easy to feel resigned to the decline and as if there is nothing that can be done -the extent of change required seems overwhelming. But you do have influence and power; please don't lose sight of the universal truth in the fact that all the small things you do will be counting toward a difference -they're not making things worse, they probably make you feel a bit better, the conversations you may have as you go about these tasks normalise behaviour in a wider circle and your purchasing decision has leverage and impact too -there are lots of good outcomes to you making your individual efforts.

Because envy.

The poster who wrote about making connections has hit the nail on the head.

On my middle class road people were up in arms when some seemingly ok trees got cut down (turned out they had early signs of a disease) because of the environmental impact but those same people order everything online - Amazon, Evri etc are whizzing up and down all day every day plus the takeaways being delivered & food shopping.

Ok some of the delivery vehicles use environmentally friendly fuel or are electric but in the main it's just people in cars or vans driving around delivering items that most people don't really need.

That is worse for the environment than the few trees that were cut down and nearly caused a middle class riot but that consumer behaviour is unlikely to change.

Because they are symbolic, high profile, and embody wealth to most people. If one of the nation's richest, most visible families eschew air travel in favour of trains, boats etc more regularly it sets a new standard for what it means to lead a wealthy lifestyle. Believe it or not, a lot of people try to emulate them, if Catherine wears a current season dress it will be identified & sold out within a week.

But then they were already pioneering re-use, Louis was seen regularly in George's cast offs, princess Anne & catherine both regularly re-wearing years old items.