Short-Termism Rules, OK?

I have been thinking (whilst jogging) about my concern about democratic politicians generally focusing only on the short term because of the election cycle (but I wouldn't attempt to solve this, by increasing their time in power). Perhaps, however, short-termism is a much wider and problematic phenomenon? Poorer people (in my experience) tend to be immediately concerned about whether they can house and feed themselves as well as their families now. The health of the planet and future conditions for their descendents is rarely an issue. It is my perception that many (but I accept not all) of the participants in organisations like Extinction Rebellion appear to be a) young and b) from socio-economic strata where they are not 'on the breadline'. Such people may be in a position to make 'sacrifices' for what they hope will be a longer period of healthy living (I applaud them, appreciating that they are distinct from others in the same or a better situation, who appear entirely hedonistic with little evidence of a social conscience). But what if you can't make 'sacrifices', without becoming extremely impoverished and risking your own health as well as that of your family? The day-to-day challenges are probably all you can deal with, as the longer term (if you have one?), is a luxury. I only have a vague understanding of religion but, it seems to me, that cults that offer the reward of a pleasant after-life, take away the need to concern oneself with the longer term. This is perhaps necessary for the poor but an indulgence for the rich? I think that people have to be helped by their governments to 'do the right thing' to keep the planet liveable. Some people don't have the resources to independently take a long-term view. I don't think that we can rely on spontaneous changes in behaviour in sections of society to solve the environmental crisis. It does, however, have to be carefully and fully explained.