I really think action has to come from governments and corporations in the form of carbon rationing. I'm not usually an advocate of 'nanny state' in fact I'm quite libertarian, but I just don't think people have the motivation to reduce their quality of life to such a degree. Just look at food rationing in WWII, that had to be enforced by the state, because otherwise people wouldn't have 'tightened the belt'. Many people still didn't tighten the belt (buying from the black market etc.), despite any possible ramifications. If the state needs to intervene to coerce people into reducing their lifestyles to fight the immediate threat of fascism, it will certainly need to do the same to fight the seemingly distant (to the average Joe) but actually imminent threat of climate change. People are too busy with their own lives to give it too much thought, apart from a few middle-classes who almost seem to treat it as a kind of hobby. Switching TVs off standby, not filling your kettle, changing lightbulbs - it's all a load of garbage, not even scratching the surface of the problem. I've read George Monbiot's book Heat and found the arguments very convincing, one central one being that if people save money by turning their heating down a degree, using a more efficient lightbulb, switching off appliances, insulating their houses and so on, they will spend the money they've saved on buying lots more things - iPods, DVDs, clothes, fast-food takeaways, nights at the pub, holidays - which all do guess what? Emit greenhouse gases! For me this is the key issue and it renders the whole 'personal responsibility' argument utterly pointless.