Aviation is responsible for some 3% and whole agriculture for some 10%. Not only you will have very little impact, but it will decrease your life standard. Additionally, you will not convince the whole society to stop flying and to stop eating meat directly. We barely can agree on climate change in the first place.
It is beauty of the free market and capitalism that as the price of CO2 will increase everyone will start looking for ways to reduce emissions without even thinking about emissions. Including innovators and investors.
There is also nice political side of Emissions Trading Schemes. It had no effect when it was introduced and it's impact increases little by little each year. Not everyone who would be opposed realized effects of that system when it was introduced. They are slowly gaining awareness, but the positions have reversed. Now, they have to fight against the status quo.
I see that quite clearly in Poland. Polish coal miners have a lot of political swing, but they did not realize the consequences of Emissions Trading Scheme. Now as the effects are increasing Polish government is not capable of changing it. But they have money from selling emission rights so they can use that money to appease coal miners and other politically important groups.
> But why would systemic solutions get suggested or implemented if individuals didn't show they wanted a solution? Where would these initiatives come from if they're not influenced by the voices, voting power and buying power of individuals?
It's easier to convince people that climate change needs to be addressed than to educate them on how --all-- industries work. E.g. how much do you know about concrete curing, steel and related emissions? Would you be able to make informed decisions with regard to building materials and CO2 emissions? Do you even know if viable alternatives exist? Do you expect companies to spend more to emit less?