>But also not entirely unrealistic
Well which is it? Hyperbole or not, the intent behind it is the same, which seems to focus the climate change problem on some of the weakest sources of fuel consumption who also happen to be some of the poorest, most vulnerable people.
I think it's a kind of subconscious projection, that the example you've brought to the fore is those poor people driving to buy their groceries, not the industrial behemoths doing the real dirty work.
This is a strawman you introduced into the conversation. This is really about average car driving behaviour, consumption patterns, the system of centralized food distribution through massive supermarket chains. It’s urban planning and public policies, not lords vs servants. Note that I didn’t suggest individuals should stop driving to fight climate change, these changes can only start happening at a much higher level.
Emissions from transportation (that includes the trucks that supply these supermarkets) is responsible for 29% of all pollution [1]. The numbers are similar for most of Central and South America.
[1] https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate...
But also not entirely unrealistic, I live in an european city with good public transport, but if I want to buy something special like a good cut of beef, I’ll be doing a 30km round trip by car.
You can keep raising strawmen, but the extremism is going from a suggestion of reduced car traffic and reduced meat consumption, to accusations of not caring about lives and mass murder.