This is why we can’t fix climate change by reducing individual carbon footprint. Because it requires 100% of the population taking it upon themselves to do the right thing and many individuals: -don’t care -don’t have the option

No, it just requires everybody who is not living in a sustainable fashion to change their lifestyle. Prending otherwise like you do is just not helpful. People will not be able to drive a combustion engine car, fly on a jet, take diesel ship cruises, eat even close to as much beef and a lot of other things, which are going to change their lifes. Without changing that, you just can not solve the climate crisis.

People like you, who only want to lobby governments to take action, ignore that this is going to create a counter movement. That already happened a few times. Yellow west and farmer protests come to mind. This is very easily capable of stoping climate action in total and has lead to some truely nasty parties gaining in power. This idea of being able to ignore those effects, is just plain and simply dumb. We need to convince most people to take climate change seriously enough to be willing to change their lifes. Otherwise your climate idea of just lobbying works once and is very quickly reversed.

Keep in mind a society is made up of individuals. That means no society will be willing to take climate action, when the individuals in the society are not willing to do so.

The top 10% globally emit almost half of global emissions That group is also the one, which can afford the alternatives, like for example EVs.

You also ignore that actually living the change, is what builts up the alternatives. Lets take EVs as an example. Economies of scale bring down prices and more EVs means more reason to expand charging infrastructure. We can in fact see both of those in action. That kind of stuff also works socially. The more EVs are around, the more normal they become. It also lowers oil sales, which hurt oil companies, which makes them weaker.

Aligning you politics and your lifestyle, also makes you more effective politically. Somebody who rudes their bike in everyday life as trandport, will call for very different things, then somebody who only drives everywhere. That can just be knowing the worst parts in the cycling network. Also again, it makes it more believable, when you lobby for something, which makes your life better.

So I will continue to try to live a life, which aligns with my values, and not pretend I gave up all my agency to Wallstreet.

What I am trying to say, is that to fight climate change lifestyle changes are required. To get those changes done in a demicratic fashion, you need to convince a majority of people to actually make those changes. Part of that is making them without the actual law, to show that it is possible.

Just take you as an example. You want I presume a combustionengine ban. However that ban would cause you massive problems, as you can not get to work or buy food without a car. I would say that, if true, those would be amazing arguments against such a ban. For me the argument is much easies, as I would do more or less fine with that law, as my lifestyle is already pretty low car.

Remember when we tried to get people to wear masks during the pandemic?

Remeber the US president refusing to wear a mask in public? Johnsons parties during covid? There was a lot of that bs.

So you waste your time trying to get 100% of the worlds population to change their individual carbon footprint.

That is the plan. How else are you going to get to zero, but to change the everybodies carbon footprint.

Instead of focusing on getting the majority of voters to protest and vote.

To do what? Ban combustion engines to force everybody to change their individual carbon footprint? Any sort of actually massive climate legislation is going to impact a lot of peoples life directly.

I have both been able to work and get food without using a car.

$7trillion is three times the GDP if Brazil. It is bigger then the US federal budget. Seriously it is insane.

How do people die from not having a car? It must be a lot of them, given that most can not afford them, but depend on them…

That includes downstream emissions. So if your car runs on BP oil, those emissions would be part of BPs emissions.

There is a reason BP is not advertising people to drop their cars. BP wants two things in its campaign. First of all to make clear that it is your lifestyles fault and secondly that besides munor changes you do not have to change that at all.

The line is reduce, reuse and then recycle for a reason. Not buying something and buying second hand are affordable for everybody. Unfortunatly the later takes more time.

Also boots theory is something to keep in mind. As in buying quality is often cheaper over the long term.

5.6%of GNP is well above the 2% inflation rate and France economy is also not growing fast at forecasted 0.7%.

Are other countries still sending bombs to Israel an this point? Germany stopped sending those in the beginning of the year, pretty much only supplying air defence components, the UK has stopped weapon licences and besides that I believe do not like Israel enough.

I am not saying media is not bias, but that some media just spins the truth, whereas others do not have a problem with fslse reporting. After all tankies are called tsnkies, because they ignored that the Soviets used tanks to violently get rid of the Prague Spring. This happens on the left as well.

And yes that is why I like reading economics news websites like the economist. They report on subjects left leaning news tend to not care about, but which can be incredibly important. Also with rich people using their reporting as a bases for invedtments, makes it hugely important that they do not outright lie. Commentary on them is horrible though, unless they go somewhat agsinst the neoliberal norm, which is rarer, but usually some of the best stuff.

False neutrality is propaganda, but so is being so is being activly biased. So a good left news source has to be wiling to show the fscts, when they speak against the left.

By making sure they do not need to try, but can be sure they can get by.

Getting rid of the electoral college would not solve spoiler candidates necessarily. For that you would need to replace it with ranked voting or multiple rounds. Would still be a good idea, as the college just means presidents caring a lot more about swing states.

You are not going to easily convert a hardcore Republican, but a lot of undecided voters do not follow politics closely. Having the Republican describing himself as a Nazi is about as clear as it can get, which will convice a lot of them to vote blue. It is also a good way of bringing people who would vote Democrat to actually vote.

States like Louisiana or Mississippi have huge black minorities. If those voters turn up to actually vote in a non racist candidate the Republicans could loose.

Moving away from Office and Windows and so forth is a nightmare for any larger company. If you use specialized software, it might very well only run on Windows or only have an integration into Office. Even if you could, you then have to retrain staff to use Libre Office, Linux and other alternatives. You also will have problems converting, changing servers and so forth.

So companies just do not switch. That is how Microsoft makes money. They really do not care that much about private users. That is only usefull so people can use their products.

Hollywood accounting is insane. Offically all movies loose money.

There are big money donors, which are not billionaires. The most common one are unions.