It's not. It's game theory; it's simple mathematics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
The effect of any one person being "non-hypocritical" is minuscule. Effects will only significant en masse, and defectors must be punished, because it's profitable to defect. That means some mechanism to keep people in line must be used - and in our world that normally means the state. So agitation for political change is the correct approach.
Moral systems are another way of enforcing group will against individuals that would otherwise find it profitable/ to defect. Shaming works more efficiently in locally connected societies, though, and it's hard to scale it up to this kind of global problem.
Did celebrities back then continue to blatantly litter while telling everyone else to stop littering?
That is what they are doing with climate change. Do as I say, not as I do.
Climate change is a collective problem and will _only_ be resolved by collective regulations and incentives. This is not a problem we can all just “chip in” on and have it magically go away.
Consider how things would be if Hollywood lead the way with all the celebrities (percentage wise easily top percent polluters in the US) giving up their gas guzzling vehicles, private planes, excessive travel, etc... Much of the public would follow their example automatically, even many politicians.
It sounds like you are advocating for "I don't have to do it if everyone isn't".
Hypocrisy from leadership (whoever they are) robs people of motivation and compassion towards both the subject and the message. (ie, climate change)
There are many examples in history where individuals stood up for a belief and lead the way to change.
Saying we should do something, meaning all of us collectively, and saying individuals should do something are two different assertions, though the verbiage is sometimes precisely the same. A person can very logically, and without hypocrisy, state that everyone should cut their CO2 output drastically to save the planet (which would be effective and help, and would also require major changes in infrastructure, law, and government) without taking drastic steps of their own (which would not be effective and would not help in any perceptible way).
Collective action problem.
> There are many examples in history where individuals stood up for a belief and lead the way to change.
This isn't a hypothetical. It's a worthwhile exercise to consider whether the hippies who have actually been taking drastic steps to lower their environmental footprint since the sixties have moved the needle at all, in terms of actual environmental degradation, public perception, or in terms of politics. Also consider whether they might have been more effective by working and spending money and effort engaging in mainstream politics and living like the rest of us.
> Hypocrisy from leadership (whoever they are) robs people of motivation and compassion towards both the subject and the message. (ie, climate change)
This might actually be true. An electorate that points at Al Gore and says "that guy uses a lot of CO2 so clearly this whole climate change thing is bullshit" is too stupid to live and will come to a bad end. I live in hope that at least a plurality of us will eventually be a lot smarter than that.
If the people calling for changes in society related to climate change are of this ilk/type/caliber, then there is no way anything will ever change ethically.
Though, it could be done through propaganda, deceit and force. In other words, tyranny.
Or, end the hypocrisy and lead by example. Everything else is hand waving and rhetoric or worse.
You've proven yourself incapable of identifying hypocrisy, in part because of your strange denial of the existence of collective action problems, but you're also flattering yourself if you think hypocrisy is anything other than a universal human trait.
This is all silly. If you're in a debate, debate the issues, don't attack the character of your opponent. If you're a citizen evaluating or advocating for or against a policy position, debate the pros and cons of the policy. What you are so fixated on is a weird non-issue.
Hypocrisy is a character issue and I think I have hypocrisy's definition correct. If you are honest/moral/ethical, can you be a hypocrite? I don't think so, hypocrisy at it's core is dishonest. Therefore if you practice hypocrisy, you are a liar. Seems like a logical conclusion.
I think it's an hypocrisy issue primarily. The people shouting for us to make a change won't make it first.
If even a majority of the people that say we should lower our carbon foot print bought only food and clothing produced without dirty electricity sources, didn't fly in private planes and only drove Prius/hybrid/electric cars, etc... (for starters)
Then maybe, just maybe they could convince everyone else it's even _possible_ to do what they expect everyone else to do to save the planet.