> They also mentioned the stat that if 1 person lived totally carbon neutral for 70 years, that would offset only 1 second of current global CO2 emissions, which I'm going to presume is sourced properly.

That's a strawman's argument and in theory would apply to anything in the context of overall society if it was true which is clearly not the case. Because if you really lived completely carbon neutral for decades, you'd probably appear in dozens of TV shows and magazines will have exclusive interviews for you. (Not sure if it's exactly NYT, but you'll sure attract interest) So other people see that and realize: wow, it's actually possible to survive for decades in a carbon neutral way.

In reality it wouldn't be that extreme but it's always a domino effect: your colleagues, friends and family see what you do and be at least lightly influenced by it. Be it just the fact that you do something that people thought would be not possible.

After all, that's how democracy works and how movements grow. It's not that your vote only depends on the campaigns but also on your peers' opinion. It's not that movements in the past haven't been succeeding.

I don't get how it's a strawman? I'll vote for the toughest pro-environmental policies and parties (but give us nuclear power as well!), but without economic pressures (so higher carbon/consumption tax) I won't change my behavior, because I think my effect will be negligible and I'd just be like the Amish, being pious while others enjoy. (Basically tragedy of the commons).

I mean in the US there are only 2 political parties over 1% anyway, so these policies cannot be very tough especially if these are without any pressure. It's quite an irony actually since the idea of a small state is so popular yet it's not being driven forward. On-and-off I'm since 15 years using private energy providers using exclusively solar, water and wind. It's a bit more expensive but negligible compared to other expenses.

> I won't change my behavior, because I think my effect will be negligible and I'd just be like the Amish, being pious while others enjoy.

Well yes, but this is what I mean, the Amish have an effect. Yet I don't think it's not necessary to live like an Amish. Probably it's fine to just pick the next pricier product. A few percent extra paid don't hurt, have a good effect and will promote these products both towards sellers and other buyers.

I'd argue this is demonstrably false if you include modern societies and even individuals that already greatly inconvenience themselves (or deny themselves in the first place) the ability to have large carbon footprints. The Amish come to mind but otherwise very orthodox religious societies and even some organic farmers you could argue are pretty carbon neutral. If anything they are the opposite of looked up to in pop culture.

> If anything they are the opposite of looked up to in pop culture.

Maybe not by their own initiative but I mean there are countless YouTube videos among them and Amish versions of popular songs as well as Southpark and Family guy episodes depicting Amish life style. Our media has quite a bias towards extreme life styles...