Moral dissonances applied to climate change, veganism and other causes
Intellectual knowledge of moral facts doesn’t cause behavioural changes unless coupled with emotional engagement.
For example: one might be convinced that giving up meat-eating is the most ethical posture and still not act out. What’s the root of this behaviour?
My gut feeling is that the emotional reactions out of societal pressure are not counteracted by an emotional empathy towards the animals. This empathy might exist at an intellectual level, but empathy is by definition an emotional response, not an intellectial one; a lack of contact with animals one eats outside of the context of food cuts the possibility of this feeling to grow organically. Consider the (usual) reactions of children when they first meet a living usually eaten animal, such as a pig, and they come to the realization that that’s the same thing that ends up in their plate.
I think this kind of intellectual-experiential dissonance, where one might be convinced of something and still not act out of lack of emotional backing of the thought, can be applied to may of the experiences of the modern life in a first world country. For example: most people would agree with you that climate change is a terrible problem, but they aren’t willing to do much out due to the protacted experienciality of the consecuences (meaning: the worst outcomes are relegated to the future).
Other types of moral dissonance
At the same time, this kind moral dissonance is different from what people tend to understand by that term; methods of avoidance of a thought that collapses with one’s view of the world. In the above case, the thought does apply to one’s world view - the problem comes with the praxis.