[solardev]

I understand that, but the carbon impacts of many jobs are small -- whether positive or negative. If you take a job that has a small negative carbon footprint, use some of the money and focus it on things that have a larger positive carbon sequestration, that's still a (small) net win.

And there are force multipliers. Education is one of them. Science/R&D is another.

Think of it another way. You can pay 3x more fancy vegan food that might be like 150% better for the climate, or use that money to plant trees directly and save more carbon overall.

Efficiency and magnitude matters. It's all CO2E in the end, but not every dollar spent gets you the same amount.

[yunwal]

The carbon impacts of most jobs are huge, certainly in finance. The need for perpetual economic growth is by far the largest contributor to climate change.

[solardev]

Per capita, I mean.

[uoaei]

Even if each person threw only one plastic bag in the Virgin River per year, Zion would suck very soon.

Participating in finance is itself a force multiplier for others to do the same, and with such an energy-hungry practice as finance, that is going to cause worse outcomes. We can't just buy our way out of the problem, because on the whole, the economic activity you generate enables others to help cause worse outcomes (even per-capita, it's a lot of people).