Why climate change doesn’t spark moral outrage, and how it could | Grist: "2. The blamelessness of unintentional action: Nobody is heating the atmosphere on purpose. It is seen as an unintended side effect of other activities. And people treat intentional harms much more severely than they do unintentional harms. So “understanding climate change as an unintentional phenomenon with no single villain may decrease motivation to right past wrongs.”"
We are happy to be informed of side effects
We are inundated with expositions of the perils of consuming pharmaceuticals
The side effect of cars and driving is death and injury
Wasted time and aggravation
Having to watch lugubrious and chauvinistic car ads
We are not happy if the side effect balances light on
the pleasure pain scales
When the alternative to driving would be anathema
So the only solution would be an alteration that would
make anathema disappear
That alteration is car free communities
that have all amenities of life a walk away
In that sentence lies economic recovery
Toynbee response to challenge
And a true new frontier
But no politician will dare run on car free
YET