2) People are often more motivated by what they lose, than some optional thing they might not gain. I'm not sure reduction of ski trips and beach holidays is as strong a motivation as one might like.

3) The effects of AGW are very geography-dependent, and enumerating a general list just dilutes it.  I'd suggest that for instance , saying +2C sounds pretty attractive to someone in Canada.  On the other hand, more specific items like:

British Columbia: all your mature pines will be killed by pine beetles

Ontario: by 2020, kudzu will survive

(various places in Canada): West Nile virus will thrive as well

Oklahoma: how do you feel about the likelihood that your grandkids will nto be able to live in OK, and will become Okies? Ever see "Grapes of Wrath?"

Vermont: too bad about ski resorts and maple sugar business, go to Canada

Upper midwest: you get warmer, but expect worse flood

Realistically, there are bunch of places where people live, where  their grandhcildren will either not be able to, or it will be very expensive or very unpleasant.  In the West, we have ghost towns around,and they are pretty sad.

4) So: a suggestion: maybe Grist should do a series, in some standard format, area by area, describing:

a) What's already been seen in that state or area.

b) Effects to expect, either by year or by degree or both

c) Cover temperature, precipitation changes, snowpack issues, water, sea level rise, insurance, agriculture, ecosystem  changes, ins some standard format.

d) Ideally, do a series that covers USA & Canada, at least.

e) When possible, recruit climate scientists local to the area to write.

5) If I had a wish, it would be to get Andrew Dessler or one of the other Texas climate scientists to start.  See recent conference Climate Change Impacts on Texas Water, for example.  Texas scientists know they have serious issues ahead, with even less water in some places, and a lot more in other places.

But, without being doom-mongering, you have to be specific, and tell people things they relate to directly, and those are *very* geography dependent.

Tell your children why we are not taking a ski trip this year.

Happily, it's not an either/or choice: morality or self-interest.  Cultural change happens when multiple arguments (e.g., energy security, societal security, morality, self-interest) mutually reinforce to create a new set of expectations.  But rampant, mindless consumerism is inherently incompatible with any expectation set that will motivate folks to address sustainability issues (not just ecological sustainability, but all sustainability). 

Just as "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind", so a spreading culture of competitive consumerism makes the whole world uninhabitable.  Like your mother told you when you were little:  think what the world would be like if everyone did that.

And exploring the world--and its awesomest natural places, if you've got the means--isn't the kind of thing we can expect people to give up. Finding low-impact ways to get to the mountains is another matter--let's green up travel all we can. I'm not suggesting vacation is a human right--it's not within everyone's means--but giving up vacations is a pretty unlikely sell.