There are at present two camps within which people fall, the global warming camp and the not global warming camp. Both have their views, their scientists and evidence to support their camp.
Cynically speaking, it could be seen as yet another imperial attempt at divide and rule. Perhaps an elaborate ponsie scheme or means of extracting money from people. What about a corporate play to do away with competition?
Either or, or something else, two camps exist. An intriguing aspect is the avenue by which people are required to explore when considering which camp to join. That avenue requires them to examine the choices and freedoms they have.
Say for example a person decides to join the global warming camp, they may well consider their carbon footprint. Soon realising that the choices they have are very limited. They require a car to transport themselves and family from point a to b, to do the shopping and engage in leisure activities. The heating and water supply is never going to be carbon neutral. The packaging for the food they eat, the consumer items that make their life simpler and convenient. Their choice to reduce their carbon footprint becomes a token effort, with their commitment to the global warming camp being hypocritical.
So here's the interesting thing, at that juncture a decision is made. Accept the lack of choice and be morally enslaved to a hypocritical belief. Join the not global warming camp and carry on as usual, or make like an ostrich and bury ones head in the sand.
I suspect most opt for option c. Without finding out and/or avoiding being told, they can maintain the emotional sanity required to carry on as normal. They can defer commitment to the global warming camp, whilst avoiding the stigma of being part of the not global warming camp. They avoid looking hypocritical by maintaining a position of ignorance.
What motivates such a choice? I suspect, in part, it is the position of parent that many possess. Sure they want the 'best' for their children. Society deems it such that the best comes at a price. Mainly, plastic, packaging and perpetually purchasing. To deny the child such things could be considered 'bad parenting' and invite social sanctions from such households as the "Joneses". As well as the resentment of the child.
Ignorance enables the standards of the "Joneses" and the 'happiness' of the child to be evenly maintained.
So it is not that the information is not being disseminated, or that the debate is yet to be decided, and open for further discussion. I think that most people are unwilling to face up to and accept, that the convenience of the lives they lead is immensely destructive. That the hypocrisy and social sanctions resulting from acknowledging the situation is more than most could emotionally handle. That ignorance is bliss, as facing the reality is disheartening at best.
This head in the sand strategy (commonly known as denial) is very effective. It's not only used in response to the global warming situation, but the global debt situation, the overpopulation situation, the resource scarcity situation, and ultimately, the we're all fucked situation.
Here is a dilemma from this situation, should a parent be seen by their children as being hypocritical or to be supporting ignorance? Which leads to the question, which is the better state, blissful ignorance, or depressing reality?