The top 100 companies don't exist in a vacuum. They provide services and goods to tens of million customers, most of whom are average Joes.
If you hold them responsible, whatever that means, they're almost guaranteed to pass on the extra costs to the consumer, leading to reduced demand and less utility distributed to the end recipient.
While it sounds better to hold a mega-corporation responsible rather than the average consumer, the end result is that the consumer ends up taking a cut either way, either through paying more for the same good or reducing their consumption.
It's a great example of bikeshedding the problem, while the world heats up.
> If you hold them responsible, whatever that means, they're almost guaranteed to pass on the extra costs to the consumer, leading to reduced demand and less utility distributed to the end recipient.
This is precisely the point. Let's face it, most people will buy what's bad for the environment if the thing is convenient. If the thing is no longer offered, or too expensive, they will pay the premium or buy something else.
We can relearn to live without fresh fruits in winter, or cheap Asian clothing. It will be a step backwards for the comforts of our modern world, but also a step backwards from worldwide disaster.
Holding the 'top 100 companies' 'responsible' would just be a boon to less efficient, slightly smaller companies. If you want to reduce carbon footprints, you need to re-shape the processes (of production and consumption) which cause the emissions.
If you hold them responsible, whatever that means, they're almost guaranteed to pass on the extra costs to the consumer, leading to reduced demand and less utility distributed to the end recipient.
While it sounds better to hold a mega-corporation responsible rather than the average consumer, the end result is that the consumer ends up taking a cut either way, either through paying more for the same good or reducing their consumption.
It's a great example of bikeshedding the problem, while the world heats up.