"Think, for instance, of the common idea that individual recycling can stave off climate change – this in spite of the fact that one hundred companies produce 71 percent of carbon emissions."
Rather shocking if true.
But those companies are largely oil companies that aren't polluting for giggles - but are responding to consumer demand.
So if consumers demand less fuel, plastics etc. it is possible there would be a 'trickle-up' effect.
FullFact had a good analysis: https://fullfact.org/news/are-100-companies-causing-71-carbo...
"This includes the emissions released when the fossil fuels they sold were subsequently used by their customers."
The majority of various populations has demanded truly grotesque things throughout human history, including but not limited to mass murder and injustice. I am skeptical of the argument that the ones (i) manufacturing this 'consent' (ii) agreeing to supply it (fully aware of the mechanisms through which the desire is produced) are innocent.
Consider this: if the only way to prevent such large scale pollution is to modify the desires of the demand side (an idea which I see no reason to be the case anyway), it could also be justified for a government to force such companies to conduct mass-advertising showing just how harmful the effects of production are.
I'm yet to see a realistic proposal for coordinating a reduction in demand, and I am yet to be convinced that the individualization of the problem is helpful to the goal of an eco-sustainable society. On the other hand, if your goal is to prioritize the ability to make profits (no matter how harmful) then you could continue to appeal to solutions which have consistently failed to gain traction on a national or international scale (such as "consumers demanding less" or boycotting).