We must radically reduce carbon emissions by 2030 in order to avoid the most catastrophic damage of climate change. How can you help?

As a city dwelling consumer, my electricity is from fully renewable sources, I watch my fresh water usage very closely, I eat a vegetarian diet, I get around in a power wheelchair, I don't have kids, etc. I live in a pretty ecologically minded state (California), and I vote for the candidates who have plans for tackling climate change. My personal impacts are about as effective as they can be at this point.

At this point, the major contributors are companies, meat farms, etc. Major change will only come when those sources of emissions are shut down. But it will be painful, and it will be disruptive.

Who’s Really Responsible for Climate Change?

In fact, only 100 investor and state-owned fossil fuel companies are responsible for around 70 percent of the world’s historical GHG emissions. This contradicts the narrative pushed by fossil fuel interests that individuals’ actions alone can combat climate change, as individual actions have minute effects relative to these emissions — average American households produce only 8.1 metric tons of carbon dioxide out of a total of over 33 billion tons globally.

I'm going to put here again what I have posed a few times before: Individual action isn't meaningless.

Whether it's the "X companies produce Y% of GHG emissions" or "we need collective, not individual change", it just reads to me as an absolution of actual responsibility. I will completely accept that as consumers, the consequences of our choices aren't transparent to us: We don't actually know how much emissions our consumption causes. But ultimately, every emission is done in the name of a consumer somewhere. And sure, some people consume more than others, right.

But to then say "individuals can't change things, therefore I don't have to change my habits" is wrong. Firstly, it sends the wrong message. By doing so, your consumption ends up in a statistic somewhere that politicians use to shape their decisions. 2% of the population vegans? Well, guess we can't emission tax the meat/dairy industry; that's just not viable. 2% own electric cars? 0.1% of the population produces their own power? Too bad, not a significant amount of voters. By doing the right things, you are being the trim tab.

Also, side note, does anyone know what the author's gripe with soy is? Why is it so bad?

A different way of looking at this is this: You have about 1/n amount of the political power in your country of n people. A priori, you also have 1/n of the consumption/emissions of your country. If you apply pressure on your own emissions, you can lower your country's emissions from 1 to 1-1/n or more realistically 1-1/2n relatively reliably if you are able and willing to make some tough choices. Incremental, but reliable.

OTOH, if you apply pressure on your country's emissions by way of political power (i.e. voting the greenest party even if you don't like their other policies) you're making less tough choices (in my country, if you care about the climate, you're probably the person that cares with many of their other policies too). You are also not affecting much change either. Sure, you might bring those emissions down from 1 to 1/2 if your party gets a very healthy majority. But realistically, that isn't going to happen. There are too many people out there who like the status quo, full smog ahead and damn the younger generations. There's two ways here, politically: Radical change happens, or it doesn't. Majority or not. If green policy has no majority appeal, it won't happen at all and your political power goes to waste more or less.

Your expected impact is roughly equal on both sides: Reliable, small change on the individual level or highly unreliable, big changes on the collective side. (if you're part of a majority for collective change, I'm splitting the "credit" for that change to everyone constituting that majority, so it evens out.) To suggest that we should use one lever because it is likely to be sufficient (at least at the country level) IF we pull it off and neglect the other one "because it isn't sufficient anyway" seems selfish to me. It's looking at the personal cost of climate action - going vegan, taking the bike, etc, and thinking "well, I'm not going to be the only one making sacrifices here." It's the climate equivalent of a petulant child throwing a cookie on the floor and saying "if I can't have it, no one can".

The companies polluting the planet have spent millions to make you think carpooling and recycling will save us

If you are young, there is a single (non) action you can take above all others to reduce your long term carbon impact on the planet. More than becoming a vegetarian, stop flying, switching to an electric vehicle, replacing your gas heater with a heat pump . . . have no children.

There's the eternal debate of Do Corporations Change? vs. Do Individuals Change?

Both need to change.

There are two base truths:

First, corporations do use their vast resources to shirk responsibility and to encourage greater consumption. But this is the nature of our Darwinian world: entities that don't do this can't compete and grow to become significant.

Companies that try to do good as their core business model accept inefficiencies that render them uncompetitive in the broader market. Ethical production has very low value to the market, which is far more concerned with price, quality, etc.

It doesn't matter that 100 companies produce 70% of emissions. You could split them up into 100,000 companies and they'll altogether still produce the same amount because there's an eager market waiting, wanting cheap flights, heating, cars, clothes, and so on.

Second, individuals buy and use productions from those corporations and thereby sanctioning those corporations' activities. Corporations don't go and burn oil for fun and giggles: at the other end there are individuals who want the output. But the modern lifestyle to which modern people aspire compel them to want/need these products.

People want to own lots of things, drive their own cars, live in big houses, and fly and see the world. We can't lay the blame solely on corporate advertising. Fundamentally our culture has been about having nice things, having it better than our parents did, and having it better than our neighbors (keeping up with the Joneses).

Combating climate change effectively requires (I think) that we change both sides of the equation — incrementally and in lockstep.

We need to gradually change regulations in order to change the market game which corporations play. And we need to gradually change our cultures, societies, and cities that fundamentally shape our consumption habits.

We need a business environment where all companies have to strictly monitor, report, and control their environmental impact, where one cannot discreetly undercut others. We need a trade environment where companies cannot leverage weak environmental regulations overseas as a manufacturing competitive advantage.

We need a culture where the ultimate stage of success is not about owning a luxury car for every family member, a big house with a pool, and vacations to Bali, Mykonos, and Patagonia. You only need to spend ten minutes on TikTok and Instagram to see that this is what global society at large lusts after.

I don’t expect this to happen. Hope for the best but plan for the worst.