And there's zero chance of systemic/legal changes without the voting public making it clear (by their individual actions and choices) that it matters to them.

Sea Shepherd, for example, are crazy far-end-of-the-bell-curve outliers. In my mind they're one of the ecological equivalents of RMS. Actions and choices that go way beyond what most people would consider sensible or necessary, but who're critically important for the movements they represent, because the "other side" has much worse and many more outliers in the "wrong direction". Without the work RMS has done over decades and the example he's set - flawed as he is - we could not have open source in the position it is today.

Sea Shepherd lobbing jars putrecene onto the decks of Japanese whaling "research" ships in the middle of the ocean is insane. But seeing suburban moms wearing Sea Shepherd tshirts in shopping malls and parks and political protests has without doubt made political candidates think differently.

Individual changes aren't enough, but they're necessary. Pushing for systemic change and laws forcing others to change their lives but not wanting to voluntarily make changes in yours just looks like hypocrisy.

Well, until the law changes for everybody, others get a competitive advantage over you by not making those changes.

So it's not hypocrisy, it's basic economics

Very short term, maybe. My personal experience is that reducing our family environmental footprint improved our life and is financially positive.

More biking in the city, health improves, less water/electricity consumption, bills are reduced, less meat, no overweight issues.

You have quite a strong positive coupling/link between paying attention to the nature and yourself.

My basic economics is that my bank account tells me it is good.