In the end, it will be the individual who makes the final decision. And we are going to decide to be comfortable now, rather than save the current state of the planet for future generations.

I am a pick-up-the-litter kind of guy, but I am not going to do without air conditioning.

Leanardo DiCaprio feels passionately about climate change, but he's not giving up his private jet flights.

Barack Obama feels strongly too, but he's not going to give up yacht vacations.

Human nature dictates the final result. Perhaps we'd better devote our energies towards ways to deal with the inevitable. Because nobody's going to voluntarily live 100 years in the past for the benefit of those 100 years in the future.

Only 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions[1]. Individual decisions have such a vanishingly small impact on the environment that it's actually counter-productive to make this type of argument.

People have a limited amount of time to spend on different aspects of their lives. If you dedicate all of your "saving the planet" time to minor personal changes, you won't have the time to do what is actually necessary -- push for political change which will actually address the problem. Yes, you aren't saying "don't try to solve the bigger problem (lack of action by governments)" but you are saying "focus on the smaller problems (what type of laundry liquid you use)" -- which would inevitably result in the bigger problems being neglected by most people.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...

The 100 companies include Shell, BP, Chevron, etc.

They are only producing the means for abusing the environment-- it's the end users that are doing the damage.

I suppose you could argue that if we outlawed petroleum production that it wouldn't allow the abusers anything to work with, but it would also deny the world of most of the progress made in the last 150 years.

> You or I have no more power than that which democracy affords us.

Which is very good in many ways, one of which being that we get scared too easily from headlines and tend to forget about many other pressing issues that all have to be taken care of all the time.

The only people who have enough power to solve the problem are the people building better technology. If you can't replace gasoline with something equally affordable, people will not accept it.

Most leaders - at least in democratic countries - don't actually have a lot of power to do things that the people don't want them to do. Just look at Macron attempting to raise taxes on gasoline. He wishes he had approval ratings as "good" as those of Donald Trump. People are rioting in the streets.

Now perhaps if you have a really wealthy country like Norway, you can afford to subsidize electric vehicles or renewable energy. The same won't work for other countries, especially emerging economies.

> The only people who have enough power to solve the problem are the people building better technology.

Not building. Funding. The problem with technological solutions to global problems isn't lack of technology, or science. It's lack of funding for R&D, deployment and maintenance.