The problem with the gratification study is that it requires comprehending scientific communications to appreciate the prize: planting trees to benefit others. Consider a study where one group would get the money the next day, another waits seven weeks, and the third sees a tree planted in their neighborhood in three months. I’d wager on the delayed gratification group because I know people who buy and plant bulbs in the fall to see flowers in the spring.

On the individual level, fighting climate change should be as commonsensical as that. Talking about decarbonization is appropriate for nation-states, not neighborhoods. Many in my neighborhood see decarbonization, like Pepsi and Coke advertising. The fossil fuel industry is battling the green industries (solar, wind, EVs) for market share – the sparkle of Super Bowl advertisements. Despite whoever is dominating the field, both are clocking record sales. Provide people with more energy (or drawers in a kitchen), and they’ll find a use.

The climate is also changing because we have upset the balance of nature with the loss of vegetation and soils replaced by impervious surfaces followed by stormwater management issues. At the local level, restoring nature, planting vegetation, deepening soils, and more rain gardens that will hold more water to reduce stormwater damages will produce results with tangible quality-of-life improvements. We can take the field with more talk of rehydration and less decarbonization banter. Rehydrate the Earth with more cooling white fluffy cumulous clouds, Simpson skies, and less heat-trapping cirrus clouds. More marshmallows and less sticks.