[Beltalowda]

I don't necessarily disagree in principle, but I think what you're saying will be very hard or impossible.

Those "business contributions to climate change" exist because they're producing goods that consumers want; you can't significantly reduce that without also affecting consumer lifestyles, by reducing the options for the number of goods, or making them more expensive.

Further research in clean energy is all very nice, but that's what I've been hearing for 25 years, and if we look at what has actually been accomplished then I think it's a pretty big gamble to bet that "further research" will all make things work out.

The last 100 years or so have been quite exceptional in many ways; I think the expectation that younger generations will have it at least as good as the previous one is just not realistic.

[jacooper]

Once we exsuahst all options to reduce climate change with limited impact on the customer, things like renewable energy(people don't care where their energy comes from), replacing unnecessary plastics with paper, etc, we can then talk about things like limiting meat consumption.

But affecting peoples lifes without actually tackling industries and corporation that do way more harm is just stupid and basically serves Oil companies targets, they created the "carbon footprint" just to distract people from focusing on them.

[gruez]

>>Those "business contributions to climate change" exist because they're producing goods that consumers want; you can't significantly reduce that without also affecting consumer lifestyles, by reducing the options for the number of goods, or making them more expensive.

>without actually tackling industries and corporation that do way more harm is just stupid

I think you're missing the parent poster's point, which is that consumers ultimately pay for everything. "tackling industries and corporation" ultimately means affecting consumer's lifestyles.

[jacooper]

There is a difference between affecting the consumers life to change to renewable energy and affecting the consumers life to virtue signal by banning meat while ignoring corporations.

[avgcorrection]

Are consumers social planners?

Did consumers plan the massive road infrastructure in America? Did consumers make public transportation a fifth-rate form of transportation? Did consumers plan American Suburbia post-WWII? Did consumers decide that housing in central locations should be so expensive that they have to live a driving-distance from work (see: bad public transportation)? Did consumers decide that the goods that they consume have to take multiple trips around the world?

Why blame the output sink for so much?

[basisword]

>> The last 100 years or so have been quite exceptional in many ways; I think the expectation that younger generations will have it at least as good as the previous one is just not realistic.

Whether or not this is true (it very well could be although we won’t know for a while) I think the idea that younger generations will just accept that is unrealistic.

[Beltalowda]

You're probably right there! But the alternative ("keep doing our thing like 10 years from now doesn't exist") will be worse, so ... yeah. It's a bad situation :-(