1. Would require legal changes. Until it is less profitable to make cheap junk that doesn't last and isn't repairable companies will not stop ravaging the envir

1. Would require legal changes. Until it is less profitable to make cheap junk that doesn't last and isn't repairable companies will not stop ravaging the environment in their reckless pursuit of profit. Consumers are trapped by this. In the exceptionally rare case where a company does manufacturer their products to be durable and repairable they tend to be exceptionally expensive niche items. 2. What I mean is this. Consumers cannot shop and boycott their way out of climate change. Reusable grocery bags/straws may give the consumer a hit of dopamine but these actions amount to little more than virtue signaling in terms of the effect they have on the environment. When no company offers a compromise free environmentally friendly durable and repairable alternative in any category consumers are trapped. This is the case with most products, and is why consumers cannot sacrifice (money, time, convenience) their way out of climate change. 3. Okay? Back to square one. That's the same sort of rhetoric we get about shuttering coal mines. 4. If I think of a way to solve global warming for $100 I'll definitely call on you to pay up.