[andrewcooke]

i'm not going to argue here because http://www.withouthotair.com/ makes the point better than i ever could.

see, for example, http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c19/page_11... - Don’t be distracted by the myth that “every little helps.” If everyone does a little, we’ll achieve only a little. We must do a lot. What’s required are big changes in demand and in supply.

and, of course, we may be talking at cross purposes - there is some middle ground where a large-ish number of small-ish things can help. i am not arguing against maths, but i am saying that our natural assessment of what is significant without actually doing the maths is often misled by absolute values, as here.

anyway, if you haven't read that book, i recommend it.

[RobAley]

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes. I'm not saying "every little helps", more like "ALL little helps". Saving 5% of my ketchup doesn't help me save 5% of my carbon emissions. Saving 5% of the ketchup, 3% of the mayonnaise, 10% of the plastic bags, 7% of the car fuel etc. etc. does help.

I could probably meet my individual targets by simply taking a big action like scrapping my car. But I'm not going to do it (for various reasons), and most people won't either. I'm much more likely to meet them by skimming a small amount of the top of a lot of other things than changing my lifestyle significantly in one or two areas.

Big change is needed, but it can come from a few big things or many little things. I disagree with the sources that you cite only in so far as I think, given the society we live in, the little things route is much more likely to succeed, particular in the consumer arena.

I think we both agree that just a little bit of a little bit isn't going to help.