In a rather heated climate change argument with a denier, he proposed the rather deluded idea that he would be less willing to support climate change policies because they would lower his quality of life, and that the evidence he had personally seen for climate change was insufficient to make him support such policies.
I told him that his idea was a very outdated take on how to solve climate change, rooted in ideas that you would have to stop driving cars completely or turn the lights off when leaving the room. The actual solution would involve a transition to sustainable energy and electric vehicles, both of which would be driven not by anything that he could personally do or feel, but by simple market forces and strategically placed government policies that would speed up the transition.
He copped out of the argument by saying, "Well, since it doesn't affect personally, I don't really care."
How should I counter such an argument?