[paulgb]

I upvoted the snark because I think in this case it's warranted. I see this article as part of a broader messaging shift to pin the blame for global warming on the N companies that pollute the most, which I don't think is productive.

As an example of how absurd it gets, someone in my local nextdoor group posted something along the lines of “why should I reduce how much I drive when X% of emissions come from N companies”. Those companies are polluting so that you can drive!

[anaerobicover]

This your comment has some well reasons, and I thank you despite that I disagree. It contribute to the exchange of ideas. The top comment does not so, this is my objection.

[someguy321]

I figure that my above comment is pithy more than it's snarky, especially considering that many repliers understood its intent accurately.

People disagree on where the blame lies regarding consumption vs production, and it's difficult to know what is posturing and what is not.

[sokoloff]

Exactly. If consumers stopped driving, how much retail auto gasoline would big oil produce? If people stopped buying airline tickets, how many airline flights would fly?

I can’t buy Big Macs and then blame McDonalds for farming the cattle.

[JulianMorrison]

Those companies are polluting because they are allowed to. Only a society level response can rein them in.

And then the individuals will change what they do, based on what is still available.

[paulgb]

Sure, a carbon tax would do essentially that, and I am supportive of it.

But absent a carbon tax, the idea that I can morally just consume willy-nilly and blame “corporations” is crazy. It's a form of moral laundering. Exxon isn't spewing CO2 for the heck of it, they're doing so as part of a production process that eventually some consumer demands. That consumer should not be let off the hook so easily.