> Do you really want to pay substantially more for heating/cool, gas, and almost every good?
Until carbon taxes become ubiquitous, this seems like the only viable option to combat climate change. The current model is functionally subsidizing goods and energy at the cost of future and current environmental damage. While I certainly agree that government solutions (carbon taxes, subsidies for clean energy) are optimal, they are not currently in place - that they may someday does not excuse inaction (or actively damaging action) in the present day.
Improving alternatives and choosing not to support fossil fuel companies are not mutually exclusive.
The solution isn't bankrupting fossil fuel companies.
The solution is finding viable replacements for these companies, whether it's solar, wind, nuclear, or something else, and then scaling them so they can serve everyone.
Finding viable replacements that people _want_ to use, along with carbon taxes, subsidies, etc should be sufficient to force some oil and gas companies to pivot to clean energy and make the rest die out or become substantially smaller.
And, this way, we would avoid a massive decrease in our quality of life, it would actually be practical, and consumers would benefit.
Until carbon taxes become ubiquitous, this seems like the only viable option to combat climate change. The current model is functionally subsidizing goods and energy at the cost of future and current environmental damage. While I certainly agree that government solutions (carbon taxes, subsidies for clean energy) are optimal, they are not currently in place - that they may someday does not excuse inaction (or actively damaging action) in the present day.
Improving alternatives and choosing not to support fossil fuel companies are not mutually exclusive.