Following the comments around decisions to have "more" children, the article veers into talking about parents' views about companies, e.g. have they reconsidere

Following the comments around decisions to have "more" children, the article veers into talking about parents' views about companies, e.g. have they reconsidered working for a company based on their climate stance, will they pay more for a sustainable product, do companies' sustainability practices influence who they purchase from, etc, all of which seems to frame behavior of individual corporations as the center of the climate crisis. Example questions they could have asked with a different framing, but didn't: - have you avoided buying categories of products or services to reduce your environmental footprint? (i.e. perhaps some whole industries are bad, rather than individual companies being good or bad actors) - should a global minimum carbon tax be implemented? (i.e. policy, not individual corps) - would you vote for or against a politician based on their climate record? - should firms with very high emissions be liable for loss and damage to property from climate-related droughts, floods and storms? (i.e. is this a justice issue?) - should governments of countries with very high per-capita emissions pay reparations to countries who disproportionately are impacted by climate change? - should any level of emission qualify as "environmental terrorism", and should responsible parties be subject to the ICJ? (i.e. insofar as the climate crisis has been avoidable, is it an act of violence?) - is any level of long-term economic "de-growth" an acceptable price to pay for limiting climate change? Of course, much more interesting would be to also ask the people who are not parents, who might become parents, or are committed to not become parents.