They want you to feel satisfied about doing your part in a way that earns them revenue, instead of focusing your energy on things that will cost the energy lobby money but actually have an effect.

What a perfect way to phrase it.

I see what you mean about those gas guzzlers. While they do make me irrationally upset, a much bigger problem is forcing millions upon millions of workers on daily commutes. This isn't just about WFH, which would be a solution, but also of insisting on putting almost all employment opportunities at the end of the same clogged roads miles away from where anyone lives.

I think you're right to point out that the argument against individualising the problem/solution should be applied evenly. It's easy to individualise the problem when someone seems to be doing the exact opposite of helping.

That said, I've one challenge, which is about insulating your home. I've heard that a good air source heat pump will save more emissions than insulation (some leaky homes might be the exception) and at much lower overall cost to the consumer. They have to be set up right, though. Maybe it depends on building materials? It might be different for timber framed houses that have some insulation built in, anyway. Makes sense to put in better stuff during ordinary construction and maintenance of those.

You seem to think that just because someone didn't specifically cite lifetime investment in each platform that it negates their premise.

I disagree.

Stop apologizing for people who have gone far outside the norms, intentionally, simply to pollute more.

Don't confuse it with someone who bought a 2005 honda and are simply getting their useful life out of the vehicle. The US Truck fetish is counterproductive to the needs of actual trucks, and wasteful in resources and disgusting in motivation.

This is conspicuous, intentional overconsumption that not only consumes valuable resources but emits much, much more exhaust products than it should, for the exclusive point of intentionally polluting by reducing combustion. To own the libs, they like to call it.

Is it equal to air carriage or maritime transport? No. No one asserted these things.

But it's more pollution dumped into everyone's atmosphere, more consumption at the pump, all for the purpose of being assholes. Those emissions aren't hypothetical, they're real. Really unnecessary too. A fucking kei truck is more useful than the average american lifted dipshit hauler. Much more efficient too.

But knowing there are people ready to jump in and snipe apocrypha peripherally related to the premise reinforces my doubts that humanity will get it's shit together before we're doomed (if not already). Have a good one.

You forget those clowns buy new gas guzzling trucks in large part to spite the left and climate efforts as a whole, which negates your point.

climate change unstoppable != scary life threatening consequences

Those are two entirely different narratives.

(And I didn't get past the paywall.)

there will be a 'bastards up against the wall' moment for the ones responsible.

i can't see how that could prevent that. Quite the opposite, if half-assed efforts (without "state of emergency") lead to higher impact, people will get angrier than with lower impact, simply because more will have to struggle harder.

I'm glad you're fortunate enough not to live in a place where climate change does threaten your very existence...your family... Home... Livelihood

I guess it's just tough luck for people whose homes are falling into the sea or the tens of thousands who are dying from record heat across Europe

I hate to break it to you, but things don't just work the way you want them to simply because you need them to. Reality is in no way obligated to meet your needs or conform to your sensibilities