Well good luck trying to get people to lower their standard of living in pursuit of an abstract solution to a problem that can only be represented with predictive modeling.
That's a large part of the issue: it probably won't. It will reduce the standard of living of future generations, but for people in the prime earning and consuming phase of their life (say 40-65 years old), climate change isn't going to have anywhere near as detectable, let alone large, effect on their life as spending $20K on heat pumps, giving up a car and taking more public transit, taking fewer tropical vacations, or even setting the heating thermostat to 69°F rather than 71°F.
Maybe I missed the point, but I don't see anything in GPs post that indicates they want people to freeze or die of heat stroke. Or suggest anything that would lead to folks freezing or dying from heat stroke.
You're barking up the wrong tree. (i) systemic change on a global scale is needed, individual actions don't "matter". (ii) corporations and governments are the only entities large enough to make changes. Governments need to force companies and incentivize individuals to make better choices, and help those that would be financially disadvantaged by those choices. (iii) paradoxically, while individual actions don't "matter", they add up of course. Both in energy usuage, and in voting. The latter is more important if we want governments to force and incentivize companies and individuals to make positive changes. So giving the environmental cause a bad name by yelling at individuals for making sensible financial choices is going to cost the green cause voters, which we sorely need.
The end.