it's something you can mostly opt out of, just like sport cars. Yes, but how far do you take the rhetoric of name-calling people "entitled" down the slippery s

it's something you can mostly opt out of, just like sport cars. Yes, but how far do you take the rhetoric of name-calling people "entitled" down the slippery slope? Entitled for wanting to drive a sports car? Entitled for wanting to eat imported food? Entitled for wanting to wear imported clothes? Entitled for wanting to wear clean, patterned, well-fitting new clothes? Entitled for wanting to eat meat? Entitled for wanting to live in a space more than one room? Entitled for wanting water and electricity on-tap? Entitled for wanting to see the sun instead of an underground one-room home? Entitled for wanting to consume more than minimal-calorie quantity of nutrient gruel and move their feet outside the prescribed shoulder-width standing allocation? Adjusting to make carbon-neutral or carbon-negative choices is way better than name-calling trying to shame people for wanting to live their lives, in the environment they were born into, doing the things they learn from people around them. The problem is that people have more than enough money to pay a few couple hundred dollars more per year. .. good? That's not a problem? Paying more tax on ICE vehicles (and extra for sport cars) to make it "carbon neutral" doesn't remove all the gases from city centers and won't prevent these gases to end up in our lungs. That is a concern, and it is a concern of mine, but it's a goal-shift from talking about ICE and electric vehicles for climate change reasons.