I mean, I don't think it should be up to individuals to be "green"; there's lots of individual choices but "price in the damage your actions cause" should not be one of them. And once environmental damage is correctly priced in, then reducing consumption is no longer green anyways, because the consumption is now carbon neutral.
>once environmental damage is correctly priced in, then reducing consumption is no longer green anyways, because the consumption is now carbon neutral.
Global warming is only a subset of environmental damage.
There's all kinds of other damage in the wake of over-consumption.
When you kill more trees than you grow back, the devastation comes much quicker than waiting for the whole world to get hotter.
Carbon can be looked at as only one material and IF it can be been made neutral in the face of rising or even curtailed consumption, that seems to be the pricing that can be correctly assessed to compensate.
To raise the ante and try to price in many other forms of environmental damage too, you're going to need a bigger bank.
Plus just to earn all that money to allow all that consumption leaves an additional trail of damage behind, with a departing path of financial acumulation leading off in the opposite direction.
And as we know, different currencies have different toxic footprints themselves, and that was before bitcoin which has gotten into a category of its own.
Gemstones and rare elements too, some are bloodier than others. Deaths here can occur faster and sooner than forests are dying.
To me this tends to indicate that reducing consumption will always be green.
There is an interesting discussion to have around whose behaviour is of an higher priority and/or which group has more blame, but regardless of that individuals can still contribute.
