You believe in climate change but drive a gas-guzzler, don’t recycle. Why?

Because a car is required to live in the US outside of a select few urban areas, and recycling essentially doesn't exist. The cognitive dissonance is real, but practical reality is a bigger factor than hypocrisy IMO. There's also the bit where much of North America stands to benefit from warming, but I doubt such long term thinking factors in much. Then we have the disproportionate impact of industry which makes individual sacrifice relatively ineffectual. The most effected by climate change are generally relatively small populations in relatively poor countries, not likely to get much sympathy from the rich west.

> Why can’t we do what we need to do to stop destroying our planet while we still have the chance?

Any explanation must also explain the success of CFC emission reduction. (And while it has less of a world-wide effect, the greatly reduced use of DDT.)

This summary fails to address how neuroscience says that one is different than the other.

I don't know what the books says about it.

To those responding to the headline, be aware that the content does not examine the headline question, nor does it even imply that those two specific choices are better understood through a neuroscience analysis.

Headlines are there to grab your attention. They are often written by different people than the article author, and the headline writers don't always match the content.

I’m focusing on adapting to climate change rather than trying to stop it.

When an electric car has an off road mode and 340 miles of range I’ll buy one. Until then sorry the mountains are more important

the cars I like only come with gasoline.

Why is Harvard trying to intellectual-ize virtue signaling?

It's very simple. We live in a society where what you say matters, but what you do is irrelevant.

Raising awareness about climate change is more important than concrete action.