I agree with you that that is the point of the article. But I think the article misses the point. In a classic Tragedy of the Commons problem, the participant

I agree with you that that is the point of the article. But I think the article misses the point. In a classic Tragedy of the Commons problem, the participants don't need to abstain from feeding in the commons in order to organize a ban on it. In fact, such self-abstainments are self-defeating because they cause the good actors to lose economic power and then have less ability to force systemic change. I find that telling people to live with low CO2 footprints to be a whataboutism distraction to have them economically nerf themselves, hence silencing their economic power to force systemic change. ...now imagine that on a global international level. The ability to force change is correlated to economic power - which "good actor" countries are sacrificing, and "bad actor" countries are filling the void. For these reasons, change can only happen with a global international accord that has an enforcement mechanism. ...and hence one of the reasons, I personally don't think Climate Change will be stopped.