>Everything else isn't even going to be a rounding error. Even if aggregated with thousands of other people abstaining as well.

I truly dont understand this mindset. The total is always the sum of the components.

You actions make the same difference if you do them alone or with 7 billion other people. Both actions are the same tiny marginal impact.

The alternative just comes off as an excuse to do nothing. As if car manufactureres will just keep building cars that nobody buys.

Even if everyone in your city stopped doing $whatever you're taking issue with, the climate will not be impacted.

Climate change is a global problem, nothing besides global regulation that's actually enforced will have a meaningful impact. It's just too profitable to ignore climate impact for this to change.

What you're doing is just lying to yourself if you honestly think your actions (even if aggregated to hundreds of thousands of people doing the same), will be a meaningful contribution on the issue.

And just to be clear, pollution is another story entirely. That's primarily a local issue and can be significantly improved (not solved!) through personal responsibility.

Most people don't apply your reasoning to any other moral question. Nobody thinks that killing a child is OK because it has little impact on the grand total of child deaths. They don't rationalize that some warlord in Africa will keep killing, even if they don't.

How is this any different? You are either part of the solution or part of the problem, and accountable for your actions.

My point is that the contribution to climate change is exactly proportional to your personal emissions devised by the the total.

You talk about policy Solutions, but how is that any different than personal action?

Killing is heinous act giving unparalleled suffering to others, that starts right at the moment, to many related person. Not same as one person doing nothing to reduce climate change. You are comparing apples to sky.

That firmly establishes that killing is very bad and faster. What it doesn't do is make an argument it is moral to emit large amounts of carbon that will also hurt people (but more slowly) just because other people are doing it too.

But that was the point: a person flying around the globe every week will not impact the climate significantly, even if thousands of people did the same. You're not going to achieve anything without global regulation, so trying to shame individuals is just pointless.

Wherever they're boomers or not.

Agreed, though for children there’s an argument that you could have a descendent that solves climate change with some technical achievement or discovery. Seems like a long-shot though, so I wouldn’t take that bet.

To reiterate, there’s “no one simple trick” you can personally do to affect climate change. No mainstream action is worth a damn. That’s kind of the definition of a systemic issue.

There’s something to be said about doing the right thing simply for the sake of doing the right thing.

Beyond that personal choice, setting an example for others is a powerful tool to promote change.