[Sankozi]

It does not seem that easy and does not seem that important to be honest. Donating 100 dollars monthly to sensible causes seems more beneficial than all combined and easier for lots of people.

3. 4. 5. 4. are barely positive if positive at all (considering environment, some are definitely healthy)

[lotsofpulp]

Preferring walking is a big one, definitely worth more than “donating“.

For most, it would require living in a smaller space, in a more urban area and is probably the most people can do to reduce that impact on the environment.

The energy spend that comes from living in detached single family home that multiplies all the distances mass has to travel back and forth from that home (and subsequent homes) dwarfs everything else.

[Sankozi]

Walking is healthy and often is a signal that you live in a walkable place. Living in walkable place (concept similar to lately popular 15-minute cities) is important from environment perspective.

But, for example, preferring walking to more energy efficient cycling means you need more calories => eat more => affect environment more.

Very often living healthy is at odds with being environment friendly. I do not say you should live unhealthy but lets not confuse those two things.

[lotsofpulp]

Walking and cycling go hand in hand in terms of neighborhood design and land use.

I guess a more accurate descriptor is “non car dependent living”.

[SamuelAdams]

I feel the same way. One private jet flight would take 100+ years of OP’s “minimalism” lifestyle to be carbon neutral. Want to know how many private jet flights left the Super Bowl in 2023?

And that’s just one event.

Being politically active and pushing for a carbon tax would do far more than any amount of individual lifestyle choices.

[acuozzo]

> pushing for a carbon tax

Would this not incentivize offshoring even more and artificially lengthening supply chains to "hide" emissions?