Any business person should see the most important action immediately. If you want to make a company profitable, lowering costs is almost always essential and mo

Any business person should see the most important action immediately. If you want to make a company profitable, lowering costs is almost always essential and more effective than raising revenues. Do both, of course, but keep costs down. If you want to lower greenhouse gas concentrations, do everything, but lowering emissions is essential. The article barely mentioned it, but the most effective emissions reductions limit concentrations more than all capturing technologies combined. The number one technologies to combat environmental problems such as climate change (but also all others -- extinctions, resource depletion, plastic, mercury, etc) are the pill, IUDs, vasectomies, condoms, and the like, combined with educating everyone on family planning. People knee-jerk respond with concerns about China's policy or eugenics, but many nations have reduced birth rates non-coercively, increasing prosperity -- Thailand, Costa Rica, Iran, and more. A few generations of a global 1.5 children per woman average brings human population to sustainable levels with a reasonable level of material abundance, around 2 billion people -- for reference, the population before the Haber-Bosch process allowed us to turn oil into food. Any population more than sustainable only forestalls collapse. I'd like to say otherwise, and achieving on a global scale what a few nations did on a national scale is hard, but nature doesn't make allowances for something being hard. And we've known this for generations. At the same time, probably everyone reading these words emits beyond the IPCC recommendations per person. Combining personal action by those willing to lead and set examples with education and legislation can reduce emissions per person. As ineffective as personal action is alone, it is a necessary first step to create role models and show that living sustainably is joyful and creates community and connection, not the burden and sacrifice people erroneously fear when they think of flying less or eating less meat. On the contrary, stewardship and taking responsibility for how our behavior affects others, especially those helpless to defend themselves, such as those breathing our jet fuel exhaust, creates some of the most joy, meaning, value, and purpose, as any parent will tell you. We'll have to change our values to a steady-state economy based on increasing gross happiness and community from a growth economy based on increasing GDP. There are many examples of steady-state economies working for longer than our growth economy producing prosperous, stable communities, and one huge example of a growth economy wrecking the entire planet's biosphere, making it clear to all except economists that we have to stop growth or nature will do it for us. Bottom line: 1) Reducing emissions is by far the most effective means to avert the worst disasters, even if some are inevitable. We can do a lot more and once we start we'll love it. 2) Personal action is not enough, but it's a necessary first step. It's also called leadership. Most don't want to lead, but those willing to will be the Mandelas, MLK's, Rosa Parks, etc of the environment.