First of all, it is important to address two arguments, one scientific, the other economic, often put forward to demonstrate that there is little or no point in taking action on climate change. The first argument suggests that it is still far from clear that global warming is in any significant way a man-made phenomenon, that we have little control over the earth's climate and that it would be futile to try to reduce future climate change. This line of thought was championed by the Bush administration until it emerged in 2005 that it was actually a gross distortion of the real findings of government scientists. For some time now the evidence has been far too compelling for us to take seriously the claims of those who dispute the link between human activity and our changing climate. There is a clear consensus in the scientific community that the planet is heating up and that human activity, principally the emission of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, is at least partly to blame. The new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due out later this year, predicts that, with no action on emissions, temperatures are set to rise by 2.5-8ºF by 2100, and that sea levels will rise anywhere from 4'–17' over the same period.

The second argument against taking action on climate change is that such action would have disastrous economic consequences. But according to Sir Nicholas Stern's recent report for the British government, the opposite is true. The Stern review argues that failing to act on climate change will result in the largest market failure the world has ever seen. This report suggests that climate change will lead to a loss of somewhere between 3% and 20% of global economic output. The cost of preventing this economic disaster is estimated at just 1% of world GDP.

The Kyoto protocol offered some hope, but it has not been ratified by the U.S. and so is far from a complete solution. Moreover, Kyoto does not set limits for developing countries, many of which are increasing their energy consumption at an incredible rate. Most alarming of all is China, which is building coal burning power stations at the rate of one a week and is predicted to overtake the U.S. as the world's main emitter of greenhouse gases within the next 20–30 years.

While it is easy to blame politicians and diplomats, the lack of urgency on this issue among the general population is actually far more worrying. The major challenge is of course the need to overhaul the energy economy, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and developing new and cleaner ways of generating energy. This may seem like an issue individuals are helpless to influence, and we can point to the lobby of big business and oil companies as a considerable barrier to serious political action, but the fact remains that in a democratic society political leaders are ultimately accountable to the public.

Certainly many people are concerned, but the vast majority of us are extremely reluctant to take any of the initiative. We are all individually responsible for how much energy we consume and how much pollution we pump into the atmosphere. Many people in developed societies are only too aware that they could do more to recycle, to conserve energy in their homes and to use less polluting forms of transport. The problem is that we feel entitled to certain luxuries, and the freedom to consume whatever resources you can afford is seen as a fundamental human right. If we are to be successful in tackling climate change, the harsh reality is that it will require a fairly significant cultural shift. It is inevitable we will have to adapt our lifestyles in certain ways so as to reduce our consumption of the planet's resources, and the sooner we act the smaller the disruption to our lives will be.

The fact that major changes to our cultural and social attitudes are required cannot on its own explain our resistance to taking the necessary action on climate change. Another reason we have not started to take climate change as seriously as we should comes down to the fact that the threat is not immediate enough to scare us into action. The worst effects of climate change may not be felt for another 30 or 40 years, a threat that is easy to put out of our minds. In fact, looking at it this way, resistance to taking action on climate change could even be described as entirely rational, if incredibly selfish, in that we will not be around to experience the problems that we are creating. Of course, this attitude is so selfish and irresponsible that I doubt many people would admit to themselves that they thought this way. However, this does not mean that at some subconscious level we are not influenced by such thoughts. From a western point of view, we could even put forward the fact that it is the developing world, particularly Africa and the Indian subcontinent, which will experience the worst consequences of climate change as another reason not to worry. This last fact will be of little consolation to even the most egotistic westerner, as temperate regions are also at risk from extreme weather and rising sea levels, and the economic consequences of climate change will be felt globally.

The depressing answer to the question—why are we not doing enough?—is that a mixture of shortsightedness, selfishness and laziness have so far prevented us from taking climate change seriously.