No, small personal decisions are the way forward. As that accumulates opinion which then changes which party and policies people vote for, their buying patterns, etc and therefore changes government/corporations.

Will it though? That's what worries me about climate change. I think the whole situation is subject to Jevons Paradox:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

Using less CO2 (for a given activity) without reducing well being much just means we are becoming more efficient with it. Which means we could potentially use more CO2, globally.

Don't get me wrong, I think individual action is good. But will it solve it? I think the only things that would solve it are:

1. Making a source of energy superior enough to CO2 that people don't even desire carbon 2. Leaving the carbon in the ground

I think #1 may be a precondition for #2.

Of course, if the small personal decisions help develop the technology in #1, they may help more directly than simply reducing consumption.

I believe you're right about individual decisions to become more active on these issues can make a difference both on the government and the business level. In many ways, it already has made a difference as many businesses, even in the most cautious industries, have tried to at least do something to reduce their emissions.

However, the impacts of an individual, even collectively, don't matter much on this issue. The change has to come in the way energy is generated in the large scale if it's going to make a difference in the problem. It also takes actions from government like a carbon tax or incentives to create more clean energy sources, or both to push these collective decisions in a better direction.

This position though is pretty much contingent on nearly every person making nearly every environmentally-friendly decision then, no?

How do you think people decide which small personal decisions to make?