Let me be more clear: What would be the impact of 1 million people switching to using bikes from cars to go to work for a year, in terms of, hmm, well-being of polar bears (animals for which I care deeply, like other animals)?

Everyone is telling me to do this and that, and that it's important. No one seems to be talking about the impact.

Being a software-developer, I know there is a limit to how much you can dumb-down the things. I probably wouldn't be able to explain two's complement to a five-year-old. But, I see the importance of the issue and we need to begin somewhere.

But how much? For example, what would be the impact of a 20% reduction in traffic congestion, made possible say by workplaces moving to a 20% remote workforce (or every employee works from home one day per week on average). What if we were to reduce our flights by 10% or 20%? These are things that people can actually envision doing. How much is needed in order to actually help? Maybe only a 5% reduction is needed (one day home in 20)?

Transportation is the big one, and the one most people are least willing to cut down on.

Unfortunately the biggest impacts you can have are to stop flying, and stop driving a car, the suggestion of which many people don't react well to.

> and the one most people are least willing to cut down on.

Getting people to eat less meat or meat from less worse emitters or upgrading existing buildings to low emissions for heating does not seem that much easier.

Anyway, you can't fix the problem with a single change.

People are set in their ways, but there's a continuous rollover of generations. Current young adults are much less into cars, air travel and meat. (Older people do make these changes too, but it's slower).