[upsidesinclude]

Debatable at best? In what sense?

There are a thousand examples of companies evaporating for exactly that reason.

'Systemic change' doesn't mean anything in reality. You can't destroy a national economic model and just replace it any more than you can make people spend money where they aren't going. Economies rely on travel and so travel has subsidy.

During 2020 no one flew anywhere and the airlines were smashed with losses. That's not sustainable for any real length of time. If individuals cared to stop flying, they would and airlines would be bankrupt in 2-3 years. No amount of subsidy can maintain those organizations without broad customer support. The soviet infrastructure decline of the 80s is a perfect example of that process in action

[serf]

> Debatable at best? In what sense?

in the sense that it's impossible to enact in a coordinated fashion without something cataclysmic like a plague to push the group action.

Yeah, no one flew in 2020 -- they were concerned with their own personal well-being while being told from every existing outlet that there was a virulent pathogen that may end their life.

How, pray tell, do you recreate that kind of action? You could cry wolf about some global disaster, but eventually the listening ears will get tired of reacting.

Reef-bleaching isn't a "you're going to die from a deadly virus in several weeks" concern, it's a "think of generations after you" concern -- and historically we as humans tend to stick our heads in the sand when confronted with issues like that; we'd prefer to have luxury ourselves than save it for later generations.

[_carbyau_]

I agree. The "rat race" is a competition with other humans. "Keeping up with the Joneses".

For every person saying "I'll not fly" or "I'll buy an efficient car" there are many more who'll be happy to take their spot on the plane or buy the 2000+kg SUV gas guzzler.

The only way to properly shape things is to change the rules of the game.

"Tragedy of the commons" only workaround thus far is a central body to limit individuals in the interests for all.

[upsidesinclude]

I understand your argument, but I disagree with your premise.

The idea that we, each, are the responsible party in this equation is ill founded. Companies have been pitching the idea that we need to be accountable to prevent disaster so that they absolve themselves of the responsibility. We are not the problem even with all the planes. That's the pitch and you are out in the wild trying to further their work for free.

Industrial pollution is orders of magnitude greater than consumer pollution. So, force the populace to adhere to a contrived austerity and continue with the profits.

'Pray tell' have you read the HN code of conduct?

Your solution is a marketing end game.