[heavyset_go]

> It's ironic that the solution would lie in the hands of common people (change their consumption, become active), but prefer to blame rich people, left and right. Billionaires don't drive billions of cars or eat billions of beef steaks, the "average Joe's" do.

Most people in America who drive a car don't have a choice, because it's they're in a situation where they either have reliable transportation or starve.

Nobody forced employers to expect their employees to have transportation, and nobody forced manufacturers to engage in unsustainable practices or to manufacture products that pollute to the extent that they do.

Meanwhile, commercial transportation is responsible for the majority of transportation carbon emissions, and industrial and commercial carbon emissions are more than four times as high as residential emissions.

[makx]

> Most people in America who drive a car don't have a choice, because it's they're in a situation where they either have reliable transportation or starve.

Yet, they would have the choice to buy a small electric car and ride-share, but prefer to buy a huge gasoline SUV and ride alone.

And it's not just about the cars (sorry if my comment gave that impression). It's about consumption in general. Yes, industrial emissions are higher that communal emissions, but for whom are the products that the industry consumes? Do we really need a new iPhone every year? Apple wouldn't produce them if people wouldn't prefer a slightly better phone over sustainable living, then they watch "Planet of the Humans" and complain that Apple's attempts to "sustainable production" isn't as green as it seems.

[heavyset_go]

> ride-share

Taxis and Uber are expensive, and you don't always live close to your coworkers. Electric cars are expensive, too.

I'd posit those with white collar jobs and whose incomes are high enough to afford a new electric vehicle would prevent much more pollution by cutting out the car and commute entirely and committing to working remotely.

> It's about consumption in general.

Industrial and commercial emissions overshadow residential emissions by more than a factor of four.

The consumer market is but a fraction of the entire market.

> Do we really need a new iPhone every year? Apple wouldn't produce them if people wouldn't prefer a slightly better phone over sustainable living

Nobody forced Apple into implementing planned obsolescence as part of their business strategy, or into unsustainable manufacturing practices.

[makx]

> Electric cars are expensive, too.

No, they're actually cheaper overall[1]. And even if they were more expensive, is it too much to ask to take a temporary financial disadvantage over the future of the whole planet? Or do we wish to stand on burning ruins one day and say "it was cheaper for me this way".

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyZOLMeMYnI

> Industrial and commercial emissions overshadow residential emissions by more than a factor of four.

> The consumer market is but a fraction of the entire market.

The end consumer is always a person (with the exception of the military maybe, but even they claim to provide the service of protection to citizens). It's just that the emissions from the products you consume don't end at the electricity you use to charge them. "The industry" is just the hidden steps in the supply chain that create your products.

No company produces anything that isn't sold. If it's not sold to you directly, then it's sold to another company which uses it to create something to sell to you.

> Nobody forced Apple into implementing planned obsolescence as part of their business strategy, or into unsustainable manufacturing practices.

I don't know about Apple but I'm using a phone that is now 7 years old, still runs fine. If Apple uses planned obsolescence then maybe you shouldn't buy Apple products in the first place.