You've answered the opposite of the question that I asked. Which underscores my point -- the consumer change drives the producer change, not the other way around.

Nope. There are more ways to make a company change their operations. Think of the EU making USB-C the standard charging port. And of course you can make companies pay for the carbon they dig out of the earth.

And it is often counter-productive, even fatal. Uh… no it’s not. Do you know what’s going on inside your own body? Do you know how many viruses and bacteria are fought off through inflammatory reactions that you hardly even notice?

And I’m just getting that response from you. Otherwise I got a bunch of upvotes for the comment.

The inaction of useless discussion.

Like this one? The point is that propaganda works. This was propaganda and I called it out. Most people reacted positively to that. And that will never be useless.

It wouldn't. That's my point. The list doesn't matter.

These things do not follow each other logically. Let me try to explain this to you: let’s say you’re on a tight budget and you can cut your costs by 15% by not buying anymore Dubai chocolate crap… or you can save 1% on buying fewer tomatoes, another 0.5% on buying less canned beans, another 2% by switching to a different brand of dairy products etc… where would you start your cost-cutting?

Of course, but what about the people who do? What will you encourage them to do?

What on earth are you talking about? It’s not like I go around telling people to take as many flights as they can. Of course you try to get people to do stuff on a smaller scale as well. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to reduce the emissions of the megacorporations as well.

We've already agreed that what needs to happen is carbon taxes, so let's work toward that.

The point is who is going to be paying them? The companies who knowingly lied to the consumers and hid the facts or the consumers who were systematically made more reliant on the product these companies sold?