Although personal responsibility is never a bad thing, we need to focus on the big companies that have been deliberately hiding climate science for decades - they're the ones doing the lion's share of the polluting and suppressing alternatives.
People dream about living a good life. Our fossil fuel consumption has afforded this to many. That is why it's difficult to change. Companies don't make stuff for fun, they do it because there's consumer demand for it.
> Companies don't make stuff for fun, they do it because there's consumer demand for it.
Companies have so much power that they can fabricate (or suppress) their own demand by manipulating the political sphere. The situation exists because it's more easily profitable, the alternative takes time/effort, and our market/government incentives only focus on short-term thinking. The same companies that profit prevent changes to such incentives.
On the other hand, I also worry about the impact of climate change. I think as long as things remain within current predictions we will be able to manage, but what if they don't? What if some process ends up accelerating things faster than expected?
Agree.
> What if some process ends up accelerating things faster than expected?
I think we're already there (for example, in quite few studies 2030 is the new 2050 for 1.5C target). Sea temperatures (esp. in the nothern sea) and ice cover also seems to change faster than predicted (we could have ice free summers in the arctic before 2030, and thawing of greenland is also faster than expected).
The poorest already make a lot of sustainable choices: living in apartments in cities, taking public transportation, consuming less.
It’s possible that if carbon was heavily taxed, and some of the proceeds returned to everybody, that the poorest would actually be better off. Never mind the whole stopping the climate catastrophe threat.
Clearly, some people care about the now more than the future.
We may just have to use solar radiation management instead.
This teaches us a valuable lesson though - money from carbon taxes must not go into the government budget. It should instead be distributed to something automatically (eg equal payments to everyone or the poorest). If it becomes part of the budget then governments might try to maximize revenue rather than deal with the problem.
Hahahaha. I can see it now: "Exxon Stratospheric Sulfur Shield - using dirty fuels in long-haul flights to create a particulate-based solar shield [0]. Partnering with governments around the globe [1] to protect the earth and boost tourism. Because we care."
[0] https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/stratospheric-aer...
[1] https://e360.yale.edu/digest/fossil-fuels-received-5-9-trill...
