I definitely share your opinion. I do think those more fortunate should put less weight on one's "wallet" and be "good samaritans". But I don't think that's a g

I definitely share your opinion. I do think those more fortunate should put less weight on one's "wallet" and be "good samaritans". But I don't think that's a good solution to invoke the widespread change necessary for the environment. Consider a similar "tragedy of the commons" externality-- air pollution. LA smog was quite infamously disastrous for decades. This was not fixed by "good Samaritans" trailblazing, but rather regulation enabled by the Clean Air Act, in which California was especially liberal in using-- car smog checks, centralized landfills, catalytic cracker carbon controls, etc. This was, in my opinion, wildly successful. Just look around LA. It's not the hellhole it once was. But these controls were, and still are, mildly unpopular [1]. The point I want to make is this-- change will not happen with single trailblazers e.g. the HN demographic. It has to happen with widespread change. That can either happen top down (e.g. air pollution) or bottoms up (e.g. making costs/revenues break even). I personally don't think a top-down approach will ever happen in today's political climate. Thus, the reality is, we need a hyper-focus on making breakeven. Because that's the reality of the vast majority of people, not just the HN community. [1]: https://publicintegrity.org/environment/a-california-regulators-curious-crusade-to-remake-the-clean-air-act/ https://publicintegrity.org/environment/a-california-regulat...