That's fair, and no one disagrees that this asymmetry exists. But the point wasn't to compare. The point was to highlight what can still be done on an individua

That's fair, and no one disagrees that this asymmetry exists. But the point wasn't to compare. The point was to highlight what can still be done on an individual level, because change there is easier to imagine happening than on the level of entire industries. Change has to start somewhere, so starting from the bottom and nurturing a healthier ideal of consumption could end up being the force that eventually pressures industries to change (by changing voters sentiments that indeed climate change is real; voting with their wallets by supporting ethical companies; etc). That's the idea anyways. Countering this disinformation with efforts on all fronts (education, activism, lobbying, personal statements like recycling) is one of many ways to stem the tide. Because the alternative is willful inaction on the excuse that we are not the largest wasters, which is an unproductive and defeatist mindset. If this line of thought takes root among individuals, I wager you and I both will agree that the problem of climate change will take a darker turn.