system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: Individual lifestyle changes are not sufficient to save us from the climate crisis

The 2018 IPCC report (that has been criticised by some climate scientists for being too conservative in its estimates of how much change needs to occur) says that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally by 45% by 2030 to keep long-term temperature increase below 1.5 C - a level that would be extremely harmful to the environment but not catastrophic. If we fail, human civilisation as we know it could crumble and millions or even billions of people will be severely negatively impacted.

&#x200B;

And I'm convinced we will fail, unless top-down change occurs now.

&#x200B;

It isn't impossible for those in the west to cut their emissions by 45%. Becoming vegan, stopping flying, buying an electric car and fitting solar panels will probably achieve it. For the sake of argument, say that for the 25% most polluting individuals, a 90% cut in emissions is manageable (though it would be costly and remove many pleasures from life) by 2030. To reduce this groups emissions by 45%, half of this group would have to reduce their emissions by 90% whilst the other half kept their's level.

&#x200B;

Sounds possible? Yes. Just about, especially given that if more people reduce their emissions, each individual only has to reduce their emissions less (if all of the 25% reduce their emissions, then they only have to do so by 45%). This would *still* require huge social change across the west that is unlikely to occur given the difficulties and costs involved in reducing CO2 emissions by this much. You can't stop flying if it is absolutely necessary for your job, and veganism can be especially difficult for those with further dietary conditions.

&#x200B;

But we've forgotten the remaining 75% of the world's population. Whilst this group emits less emissions per capita than the 25%, *they also need to reduce their emissions by 45%*. This group have lower emissions to start with, so need to reduce their emissions by less, but it will be a lot harder for them to reduce their emissions. They are generally significantly poorer than the 25%, and live in areas with less infrastructure. You can't drive an electric car in an area without a stable electricity grid. You can't become vegan if you're a subsistence herder. You can't stop flying if you don't already fly. You can't afford to buy greener products if you're already choosing whether to pay for rent or food each week.

&#x200B;

It gets worse. Over the next decade, many in the bottom 75% will become richer. They'll have more money to spend, and will (acceptably) use it to increase their quality of life. This will certainly increase their emissions. This then has to be balanced through even greater emissions cuts from the rest of us, and the more emissions you cut, the harder it is to reduce your emissions further.

&#x200B;

And we can't stop at 2030 either. We've got to keep decreasing our emissions after then. As I said before, it will just get harder and harder.

&#x200B;

Personal actions are pointless, unless those personal actions are demanding that governments actually do something about this (say, close all fossil fuel power stations, open (carbon neutral) factories to build electric cars and faster trains and ban flying).

&#x200B;

I want to be wrong, and I want my choices to mean something. Can someone please convince me they will?
gpt
To use an analogy to voting...

Just because your one vote didn’t push a candidate over the line, doesn’t mean it didn’t matter.

And generally speaking pushing for government intervention is pointless if it’s not reflected in the actions of the people, refer to prohibition, the drug war, etc.

So while action on large scale are required to prevent climate change, inevitably that will be made from the actions of individuals.