Yeah, that is unfortunately a very common sentiment and a large part of why things continue to suck in the world and are unlikely to get better. It isn't just climate, people are far too selfish in pretty much every aspect of society and the whole is suffering because of it. I wish I could be optimistic about the future, but then I see comments like yours and am reminded that humanity has well earned it's pain. When the possibility of success approaches zero, giving up is a rational alternative to trying.
I'm pretty convinced there is no such message. I think it is telling that you refer to such a concept without even suggesting what it's co tent might be. It is fairy dust.
These aren't messages that will resonate with everyone, but they will resonate with more people than saying "life sucks deal with it". Look at how Ford is marketing their new electric pickup. Do you ever see the words "global warming", "climate change", or "sacrifice" appearing anywhere in their copy? No, because that messaging doesn't work so they focus on talking about capabilities, features, and QoL improvements instead.
People did it during WWII, not just by participating in combat but by donating their possessions to the war effort, and that was within living memory of people still alive today. Saying "that's just not how people work" assumes that it has always been so. I think something has changed since the 40s to make any kind of sacrifice for the community look like anathema to most.
People "tightened their belt" during WWII because they had their sons conscripted by the government to go fight in the war. Some people never saw their fathers or sons ever again once they left the train/ship for Europe. Women were leaving the homemaking roles and working in wartime factories, offices, etc. because you had (theoretically) half of your population off in another country fighting for their lives.
You had _everybody_ on board since everyone knew somebody who was currently fighting, died/wounded in battle. It was a very real, persistent, visible issue. Climate change is not visible to everybody and doesn't affect everyone like the war effort did.
People see higher cost of living and they're living their daily lives just as they have been for the past decade. There's been no directly observable reason for the majority of people to start encouraging climate change action. It sucks, but that's the way it is right now because humans are humans.
Climate change is not that visible of a threat, (un)fortunately, depending on how you look at it. The majority of humans don't look farther than a couple years ahead, _if that_. They're too busy trying to survive with increased taxes, inflation on all goods and services, along with horrific monetary policy during a pandemic.
You get a tax credit for buying EV's. Maybe there needs to be a bigger credit, or a bigger tax on fossil fueled cars. Don't ban stuff, just increase taxes on stuff and influence people's direction. The money raised can be used for making things better.
No problem, climate change will do it for them.
Observations from cities that have actually made tangible improvements to their cycling infrastructure and seen a significant increase in cycling mode share suggest otherwise.
In 1973, when OPEC fully embargoed the Netherlands (among other countries), the Dutch government instituted "car-free Sundays" for three months in an attempt to curb oil use. It seems to have been fairly popular.
Interesting that you interpreted what @spodek said that way, they talked about improving quality of life and you read the complete opposite.
To be blunt, I wouldn't vote for a politician that told me I need to reduce my quality of life, nor would most people, which is why you never hear a politician say things like that. The average person does not want to hear that they need to tighten their belt so that someone else's belt now or in the future can be loosened. That's just not how people work.