In the four lines I wrote, I talk about the states responsibility and about the importance to pass stronger legislation to change things. I never claimed that

In the four lines I wrote, I talk about the states responsibility and about the importance to pass stronger legislation to change things. I never claimed that you can fix structural problems by individual behaviour. I claimed that you can't fix them without (some) changes to individual behaviour. Political change never just happens without activists pushing for it. And in order to understand the space they are pushing for, you need both, leading by example and credibility in asking people to pass laws that mandate behavioural changes. Finally, I see no evidence for the idea that pushing outside the political sphere can not also lead to societal and behavioural change. Meat consumption is way down among younger people. Car ownership is down, too. This is in all likelihood to slow. But if we ever hope to change laws in cities to get rid of cars where they are not needed, well then having a large chunk of the population cycling and using public transport, and having had a gradual build out of alternative infrastructure due to this chunk of the population is going to make things politically a lot easier. The same logic applies to divestment. If a large enough number of individual actors divest from carbon extraction, the politics of it change dramatically. And once enough people signal by divesting that they believe that the political change will come (thereby making carbon stocks worthless), they can trigger others into such behaviours. Arguing for political action always has my vote. It's probably one of the best ways to use your time. But arguing against adjusting your behaviour is cynical and lazy. And arguing against people on here advocating for others to change their behaviour is actively arguing against political action. Because that is what political action actually looks like on the ground.