> I'd much rather governments ban net-positive carbon emissions by the major offenders entirely and force all further major offenders to shut down, but that doesn't make our government officials rich does it?
What do you think happens if governments do this? On one hand you are saying most people don't have the option to change, but then quickly followup with saying governments should force massive change.
> you expect them to shoulder all of the burden that the manufacturing and oil industries are causing
Ultimately, the issue is that industry is not bearing costs of their activity. We want them to pay for the externalities, so that someone can be paid to cleanup after them, or more likely that they change behaviour to some alternative that has become cost effective.
But these costs will be passed onto the general population. Now instead of having the unrecognised costs loaded onto people through climate change, we will do it explicity. This will be the oil companies, or via whatever replaces that industry. I think that is a good thing, because it will make people vote with their wallets, to change their consumption patterns.
But they'll still have to pay, or change their behaviour. They'll end up eating less meat, more plants. They'll drive smaller cars, buy electric, take public transport, live in smaller houses, fly less.
I agree with needing to do this for us. Externalities should never be unaccounted for, it distorts everything. What I am saying is that it is hypocritical for an individual to campaign for governments to step in and force everyone to adapt enmasse, if they're not prepared to proactively change their behaviour to match the world that they are wanting everyone else to live in.