Well, for one thing people will often do for free things they wouldn’t do for money. Imagine choosing between “i will pay you $10 to come to my party” and “i’m having a party, will you come?”.

Parties are supposed to be fun, so if someone offers to pay you to come to a party, that sends a signal that the party is not, in fact, going to be fun at all--otherwise, why would they pay you?

On the other hand, paper straws are a shitty product that are unsuitable for use, but if I was offered a significant discount on beverages that were served with them...well, I wouldn't take it, but I could imagine someone who was desperately broke considering taking it.

See, what you said is exactly the problem i have with mainstream climate solutions. The choice shouldn’t be paper straws vs plastic straws. The choice should be no straws vs straws. Similarly, the question shouldn’t be “can I run a/c slightly off peak” rather it should be “how can I run less a/c”. This applies all over the place. Electric cars have lifetime emissions that are lower, but in the same ballpark as ICE cars - if everyone switches to electric and changes nothing else, we still have climate change.

No, the question should be “how do we produce significant amounts more carbon-neutral energy instead of reducing the standard of living”.

It was a sarcastic remark to his/her selfish attitude towards sustainability.

"Sorry, not sorry" multiplied by 1,000,000x and through the decades is what got us (all) in a climate emergency.

It certainly helped change my mind on the matter.