The bigger problem is that there are so many people in the pay of those who'd rather watch the world burn that the short term interests are going to win out or have at least significant enough effects that in the longer term we're going to be paying a very hefty price indeed.
Individuals changing their habits will do plenty, if enough individuals are involved. It's a sales and marketing job. If you can get 100's of millions of people to download a stupid game then you probably could get 100's of millions of people to think about whether or not they really need to make that trip, about whether or not they need a new car or not and whether or not they really need to have the AC running 24/7, and to vote for parties that have an eye out for the environment (never mind that in a two party system that's a pipe dream but in countries with coalition governments those parties do tend to get into positions of relative power and the changes they cause are large enough to matter).
Someone who spends his time flying around the world while successfully convincing the masses to be environmentally conscious will have a much greater positive impact than someone who reduces his own carbon emissions to zero but does nothing else.
Flying to see the Eiffel Tower, or not, doesn't do squat.
But it does make a difference: because you chose not to fly and by telling others that you chose not to fly and why you are setting an example. That act, multiplied by thousands does have an effect.
So your individual choices do matter, because you are not only affecting yourself but also those around you, who in turn may affect those around them and so on. Virality is at every scale made up of small connections.
I could easily afford a new car. Instead, I've bought an old one which will last me at least another 5 years at a very small fraction of the price and the environmental impact of buying a new one. Anybody that challenges me on why I drive an old boat like that is a primary candidate for a lesson on what the environmental impact of a new vehicle - even one that is more energy efficient than this old one - is.
And so on, hopefully with a replication factor > 1.
If you think that it's useful to set an example, then fine. But if I honestly think that my example isn't going to change anybody else's mind, then it's not a "cop-out" to take a flight anyway because the marginal contribution to climate change is down in the noise.
You have a point, but if your mind has already been made up then what difference does it make how I see it?
> But if I honestly think that my example isn't going to change anybody else's mind, then it's not a "cop-out" to take a flight anyway because the marginal contribution to climate change is down in the noise.
You too are somebody, and if you can't convince yourself that your actions ultimately (especially when taken over a lifetime) add up to something tangible then I'm not sure what I could say to you that would change your mind.
But let's just for a moment assume that everybody thinks like you: that would be one world. And then let's imagine a world where people are more likely to think like me, that would be another world. My argument is that those worlds will materially differ and it is all those small decisions that made the difference.
It's a bit like war: if all the soldiers would refuse to fight the war would end, immediately. But as long as they all collectively believe that their action or inaction will not make a difference the war will go on.
Yes, we're part of a collective. But responsibility is carried by all of us, individually, and that responsibility can't be waved away by saying 'my actions make no difference'.
Imagine two more worlds: one where everybody but me thinks the way you do, and one where I think the way you do but everybody else thinks the way I do. My argument is that those worlds will also materially differ, but in this case the "good" one is the one where I don't do anything.
You need to show me that changing my own personal habits will somehow noticeably push the world toward one of the "good" ones. All you've offered so far is a bunch of wishful thinking about how if everybody thought this way, it would be better. It's true, but changing my habits doesn't do anything to change other people's minds.
It is a bit like war, except that we don't have an army. There's an implacable enemy out there, and there's no organized resistance. You're telling me that I ought to pick up a gun and go fight. I'm saying that this would be silly, I'll just be instantly killed by the enemy without making a dent in threat they pose. Instead of convincing individuals to individually grab guns and charge the enemy, we need to raise an army. We need to get everyone together and act collectively.
You don't raise an army by going around criticizing people for not fighting the enemy. You need to create an organization, you need hierarchy and structure and doctrine and funding and a mandate from people with power, and only then can you productively go around telling people they ought to join up to fight the enemy.
It is reasonably easy to convince people to vote for a relatively popular candidate.
More to the point, if there was a carbon free air travel then you would have no moral case against visiting Paris (or wherever). The marginal cost in terms of the environment of one person, more or less, staying home is pretty darn close to zero. The only real way to convince a few million people to stay home or travel closer to home, is through a carbon tax or something similar. But you seem to have conveniently left that out of your argument here.
The easiest way to clean up air is to convince people to switch to mass transport, especially rail; failing that, to electric vehicles.