When I was a young child, the family lived in a house with a long rear drive servicing the garages. The drive was non-maintained by the council, therefore private and a collective responsibility for residents with no agreement in place. When it became almost impassable, due to drainage issues, one resident lobbied other residents to pay a share to fix the problems. The resident nearest the entrance decided he'd contribute towards repairs from the entrance to his garage. So the next chap along decided he wouldn't contribute to this but only from the end of that repair to his garage. This attitude spread all along the way, right to the endmost house who wanted to pay precisely nothing because if ''everybody else would only do their bit'' he could get to his garage no problem. He also happened to be the one who had a couple of exotic holidays each year and was not shy to say that was why he couldn't afford to pay - not prepared to give up his holidays.
This is the exact model of opting out of climate emergency control measures - a self-justification for either denying the problem, or otherwise justifying why they shouldn't be the one to pay. On the other hand, the 'polluter must pay' principle should hold, but in the UK the polluter is subsidised personally by the subsidy on aviation fuel, and even rewarded by frequent flyer discounts. People who do not fly are often disadvantaged by airport expansion with the accompanying air, noise, and light pollution.
We live in an age where 'want' is barely discriminated from 'need'. The model is unsustainable. We are all aware of the consequences, including those pretending the science says otherwise.
