It's not about the size of the problem, it's about the quantifiable efficiency of mitigations. In real world, every problem has numerous competing ways of solv

It's not about the size of the problem, it's about the quantifiable efficiency of mitigations. In real world, every problem has numerous competing ways of solving it, and the rational way to solve the problem is to quantify the costs, efficiency and risks, and to pick the methods based on it. The general public's approach for addressing climate change is very far from rational. It looks more like a panic where people desperately chose a random way of inconveniencing themselves, as long as it looks plausibly "green". This has been spearheaded by the marketing departments, where many cost-cutting quality-lowering measures are sold as "green" leading to very measurable and quantifiable profits on one side, and some guilt alleviation on the other one. There are efficient technologies, such as biodiesels, wind power, carbon capture, that have a net positive impact, and there are others that are more questionable if you consider second-order effects (e.g. limited supply of lithium and pollution from making batteries out of it). If you really care for the planet, spend your time researching the big picture and making rational and properly weighed decisions, rather than blindly trusted the marketing department that exists solely to make money off your decisions...