I agree. There is no-one thinking 50 to 100, or even 200 years ahead. Short term is the order of the day. It will be the future generations that suffer.
I don't have children, but if I did I would be intensely concerned with the environment I would be leaving them - and their children in turn. Yet as far as I can tell, those I know who do have children seem unconcerned. It is the immediate future that interests them ("new shiny") rather than the long term.
It didn't used to be like this. The old European cathedrals were planned and built over decades, if not centuries (
Cathedral Building in the Middle Ages).
In 50 to 100 years time when fossil fuel resources start to run out, our children's children will have to do what we should be doing now, and develop renewable resources. They will have to do so with a (most likely) more hostile environment (due to climate change) and without the reserves of fossil fuel to help kick-start the change.
Maybe using all these fossil fuels won't cause catastrophic climate change, and the naysayers are wrong. However, it seems to me to be a gamble, the stakes of which are the future lives of our children and their children. Unfortunately it seems to be a gamble many are willing to make.
I would rather we didn't make this gamble. I would rather we "bite the bullet" now. Take the hit, make sacrifices to our lifestyle and go hell-bent for long-term sustainable renewables. For the sake of our children (and their children).
We won't, which I find heartbreakingly sad. The only consolation I have - and it is an empty consolation at that - is that my descendants won't be affected, as I don't have any children.