People want to be protected from fires, to the extent that enough will support their government funding fire services. Even with fire services provided, fire insurance is a popular product for those with a sizable amount of assets that can burn down. This has enough support to be enacted.
I suspect the same will happen with climate change once it changes enough. The problem is that by the time directly impacting people enough to convince them of the need for action, the ability to resolve the problem will be outside our scope to control. Much in the same way a few cities had to burn to set an example for others. Which leads us to the other problem, we only have one 'city' to burn.
If we try to solve climate change the same way that we solved fire services being seen as a common sense government action, it will work but only after the city is burning.
