@BigGangForEvery1 @luckytran I'd agree if it had a significant impact and wasn't performative. People switching to vegetarian diets, for example, would be far, far more impactful and would directly incentivize companies to move resources away from meat production, which is a huge environmental impact.

Using less energy doesn't necessarily incentivize moving away from fossil fuels... if burning is still cheaper, that's still what they'll do.

@BigGangForEvery1 @luckytran they don't though. Our choice of energy production is what makes it actively worse. Making people cook in 40+C weather because a corporation wants to make an extra buck burning coal to make their product instead of buying a solar panel is not the right answer. Even in the US, with pretty high use of AC, its use accounts for something like 6 or 7% of energy use. It's a drop in the bucket and was never the problem.

@luckytran Taxes to account for the free ride they're getting on externalized costs of air pollution and greenhouse emissions. While we're at it, taxes on imported goods proportional to the fossil fuel use of the country they're made in (no point in just shifting fossil fuel use overseas, greenhouse emissions don't care about borders). Get rid of the false financial advantage fossils have by making society cover their impact costs.

@BigGangForEvery1 @luckytran Captain Planet was ultimately a very 90's shallow take on environmentalism that put the onus on individuals to fix problems caused by large corporations. It did good in raising general environmental awareness, but shouldn't be looked to for actual action imo. We need taxes on fossils, and goods from countries that lean on cheap fossils, to actually pay their externalities and stop giving them a false financial advantage against renewables.