When you can get citizens to consistently try to solve the problem on the level they can control, then you aren't going to be able to consistently get governments to do it either. The options left are to use educational methods to convince the citizens otherwise or go with options that do not require action level buy in from the majority.
Sometimes the things a person can individually do don't work and they need to act in concert to make a difference. Fire control, transportation, defense... health care? Mitigating environmental catastrophe?
I suspect the same will happen with climate change once it changes enough. The problem is that by the time directly impacting people enough to convince them of the need for action, the ability to resolve the problem will be outside our scope to control. Much in the same way a few cities had to burn to set an example for others. Which leads us to the other problem, we only have one 'city' to burn.
If we try to solve climate change the same way that we solved fire services being seen as a common sense government action, it will work but only after the city is burning.
Redwood trees (as an example) are relatively fire safe. At the opposite end Eucalyptus trees are fire hazards.
So - plant a fire resilient forest appropriate for your climate.
