Totally! Living a less consumerist lifestyle is excellent if that's your preference - and I think there are serious mental and emotional benefits from trying to live a life aligned with your values. But to build a climate movement, making people feel guilty for individual choices isn't a winning strategy. People need hope to sustain themselves for the long battle. We need to keep the pressure on governments that can make the policies and regulations that will hold the real sources of emissions - massive businesses - accountable for the harm they've done and force them to make the kind of systemic changes we need to draw down emissions as fast as possible.

But... Being more green requires buying and using less things, which is bad for the economy. Unfortunately we cannot just switch to green energy, we have to drive less, consume less, etc.

And who do you think is going to push back on that? How about the people who sell us stuff...

And how much money do you have to donate to politicians? Because it's probably not billions of dollars... but they have it, and they will use it.

I am not saying we should not try, but I am saying that we shouldn't ask, we should demand, that things change. But when politicians won't listen to you because of the fat stacks of cash stuffed in their ears... We will inevitably be closer to step 3, and if that happens, we'd better be organized and ready to build something better.

Sometimes when you suggest to people that they should consume less that look at your like took food out of their kids mouth...

People can't just choose not to participate. People need to eat. That doesn't mean that corporations need to burn down the rainforest to create farmland. Me needing to eat doesn't justify the corporate decision to maximize profits at all costs. That's a singular example, but it extends to every category outside of luxury goods. You need a smartphone to participate in modern society, you need a computer, in most US cities you need a car, you need clothes. Telling people to opt-out of the society that everyone else is participating in isn't an adequate solution. Sure, you can choose the most sustainable and eco-friendly options for those things, assuming you can afford it, but for a lot of categories there are no options. The major corps own the entire industry and they're all run similarly. We need changes at social, corporate, and governmental levels since an individual's power is limited to 1 out of 8 billion. Of course it's just my opinion, but an individual shouldn't have to pay eight times what regular soybeans cost just to get soybeans that weren't fertilized with the future of humanity.

I agree with the idea of voting for parties with strong green agendas... in principle. In practice, I find it hard to make it work because, at least in my country, pretty much every political party (even the conservatives) have environment policies in their agenda/manifesto and they all make sure to promise loads in this area to get your vote.

Everybody knows that's not how it works: they will promise grand green initiatives and then deliver 10% of that at the end of their tenure, passing the buck to someone else. So yeah, you could punish them by voting someone else at the next election but they'll do exactly the same (if they manage to get elected, that is).

Voting for "The Green Party" is not really an option either as these kinds of political organisation centred around a single problem rarely aim to run for government, so voting for them is a bit useless as the rest of their political agenda (education, health, economy...) is weak, nonexistent or batshit crazy (again, speaking for my country).

So, how does one solve this conundrum?

"Why does Coca Cola keep making all those single-use plastic bottles? Sure can't be anything to do with me and all the Coke I drink". This attitude really isn't helped by articles like the one OP linked.

The politicians on the ballot have all been given vast sums of money by organizations that sell you stuff. Politicians don't have to listen to you, they have other priorities.

Can you find a company that is not greenwashing? But is actually trying to make sustainable change?

And does that company eventually get bought by one of these larger corporations that don't give a shit?

Good luck voting with your wallet, you can spend a dozens and dozens of hours trying to find a clothing company that isn't using child slavery... only for their use of child slavery to just be covered up really well, and actually they are the same as everyone else...

Could you completely avoid buying Coke products? Sure. But then again, you can't control all of the restaurants that provide it by default, and it's such a cheap product that it doesn't require a lot of sales to be worth it.

Do you know what business idea doesn't work so well? Creating products that cost more but are no better than any other products, but at least you aren't using child slavery and environmentally destroying tactics! But then again, nobody can actually afford your product because most people are actually quite poor. Even if they wanted to, they couldn't by your stuff. So since your prices are going to be high anyway, you market to only rich people. But then again, most of those rich people don't have the time or energy or even care about how green your product is, therefore it's just bad business to spend more caring about how green your product is. Once you become a public company, nobody cares about anything except for your profits and stock price (usually based on your current or projected profits...). So... You ditch the green thing... There's no incentive to be green, at all.

Trust me I'm trying, and it takes those dozens of hours to figure out that there's even a problem like this, let along finding even 1 company or politician that isn't contributing to the problem...

Sorry for the wall, I see a lot of misconceptions about this stuff...

I'm not convinced this is true for most people.

YOU may be conscious enough to understand not to buy a large vehicle because of emissions, bust MOST people do fall for marketing after a long enough period of time of being exposed. Think about ALL the F-150's you see (In my area they are everywhere) that have NOTHING in the back. NOTHING. Not towing ANYTHING. I have an EV hatchback & a wagon with a mid-sized trailer. I've done WAY more backyard projects than the vast majority of the people in suburbia. We've used excavators, built multiple 30 ft retaining walls, a 12x12 shed, and we plan on doing more. I will never need a truck because I can tow 2000 lbs in my wagon, which is more than 99.9% of people need.

Most "normal" people that I talk to, and that's all we have if we're not looking for people who are on the internet a lot, most of them think their truck is really convenient. They get a full sized cab that holds their whole family, they get that truck bed that they throw a toolbox and once in a while, and the truck can tow 10,000 lbs even though they literally don't even own a trailer hitch and don't know how it works.

Trucks are just the replacement SUVs, oversized cars that marketing has determined is the "american car". You can do anything in a truck! Or you can do the vast majority of things in a Toyota Corolla too, but those aren't "cool".

Marketing works dam well, Apple owns the high and computer market even though we know that they screw over customers by making their products impossible to repair (literally, there's software preventing it). Ford sells the most vehicles and america through the F-150, which I already established is something most people don't need but buy anyway. The vast majority of people do not even need a single family home. How many backyards go completely un-maintained? How many older couples live in a 4 bedroom house because... That's just what they are used too... We could have more middle housing for people who want space, but not a backyard, but they don't exist. You literally can't vote with your wallet to buy the housing you want if you don't want a single family home (Or a crazy expensive condo downtown, or to rent the rest of your life...)

And lastly, when your driving on the road in a little ev hatchback like me, you become painfully aware about how gigantic all of the trucks and suvs are around you. You realize that at any moment if somebody takes a wrong turn you are probably dead. Most people become very uncomfortable with that, and they get a bigger car, as big as they can afford, to prevent that feeling.

And we've just talked about cars and living situations, how do you vote with your wallet when every single product is made by child labor in a country being exploited by america? Can you trust when a company tells you that it doesn't do that? How much greenwashing exists?

No, car companies marketed big cars that are less efficient. They did this because using more gas is good for the "economy". It is good for business to spend a lot of money on big cars that take a lot of gas. There has absolutely been times in our history where our energy regulations were higher and our cars were more efficient and everyone was happy with it.

Think about it, why do marketing departments even exist if people are going to theoretically buy and demand what they want anyway? I'm too young to remember when commercials basically just explained what a product was and what it does. Nowadays, commercials are trying to get you to feel something, not explain something. Advertisement online are trying to be splashy and catch your attention, not be useful and tell you what you're going to get.

Any marketing department should be able to explain that they try to get people to by their products for reasons other than customer demand.

How do we demand it exactly? I've been exercising my choices as a consumer for decades and it's gotten me nowhere. Personal responsibility only goes so far, the companies choose what you're able to buy and you make the choice after the fact.

There are 3 stages of protest. 1 is non violent protest rally and spreading awareness. 2 is direct Action. 3 is violent uprising. Stage 1 is done. Everyone is aware. Everyone knows everyone is aware. We are now in stage 2. If governments do not act, stage 3 is inevitable. It's not a threat, just a logical outcome.

Not to go all "Land value tax solves literally all problems", but boy would it really help a lot of things, including ludicrously inefficient land usage.

When you're poor, then you already have a very low co2 footprint. Your cousin is kind of an idiot to be honest. Giving up is one thing, but then she decides to actively work for someone who makes the world worse.

Or governments should legislate companies. They'll pollute until they're stopped like they used to allow people to work with radioactive substances without protection. Companies will try and profit regardless until a government steps in and says, not this way.

We should obviously try to re-use, reduce, recycle, but we cannot do this on our own, and the vast majority won't, so a small minority that cares is carrying the burden while pissing in the wind.