[dTal]

Why not money? In a capitalist society, it's the one thing that really counts. Money represents resource allocation.

Trying to solve the problem by changing your own behavior, and only your own behavior, is low-order thinking. The real problem is that the cheapest behaviors are not also the most eco-friendly behaviors. Sure, you personally might be able to afford to (for example) pay more for glass containers, mentally chalking up the difference as an unaccounted externality in plastic bottles. But until that difference is accounted in the price, society's behavior will not change.

If you really want to solve the problem properly, it's better to spend your money on things that will change everyone's behavior, not just your own. That means things like lobbyists and scientific research. It's less personally satisfying but more effective.

[cfarm]

Not everyone has money to give.

[dTal]

Not everyone has the freedom to make arbitrary lifestyle changes either, if they don't make economic sense. This isn't about only taking action that's available to everyone. It's about each of us doing all that we can.

Forgive me if I misread, but you seemed to exclude monetary contribution as an option on principle, not out of poverty. What principle?

[cfarm]

I'm always left wondering what every person regardless of socio-economic standing can do to contribute.