To be fair, I think it's quite rational. My personal actions mean very little towards the fate of the climate, so why should I unilaterally sacrifice my standard of living? It's a classic Prisoner's Dilemma, which is why the climate cultists want to take away personal freedoms.

The cold hard logic of climate alarmism is that someone's standard of living must be sacrificed, and thus it is absolutely a game of political power to determine whose. The globalists have done a pretty good job of convincing the masses to fight each other about this while they continue to live in luxury.

Of course, you could adopt another view, which is that the so-called climate catastrophe is overblown and that humans will adapt in any case. I think this second thesis is more likely, given that ecological alarmists have been consistently wrong about stuff for decades. Maybe they're right this time, but the track record doesn't lend much confidence.