>The fact is if there is something you can do to lower your carbon footprint you should do it.

Here's what it boils down to: I just don't see what difference such a tiny drop in the bucket makes when most people don't have the means to do this. Like, do that if you want, but it's kind of like Christian penance, atoning for the sins of carbon consumption, because it can't solve anything given the tiny percentage of people who the privilege to lower their carbon footprint.

I'd rather support political parties that have an actual climate plan, destroy anti-climate change propaganda, circulate petitions, protest and get others to protest, and any other type of collective action that pushes the needle socially.

And please don't say "why not do both?" I have 2 toddlers at home and work full-time...I simply don't have the bandwidth for it, and having done it in the past, I know it eats up a lot more bandwidth than you'd expect, and is only possible to a modest degree to begin with (no matter what you get, it's unethical to some degree).

This is yet another argument against ethical consumption solving anything - how many middle-class people have the bandwidth for it? And what does using that bandwidth displace instead?

Have you read about the history of recycling? It was devised by oil companies as a mechanism for funneling pro-environment bandwidth into ineffective individual action, and away from collective actions. This is a historic fact. I mean, the baddies know ethical consumption doesn't work to the point that they actively encourage it as a deradicalizing tactic. That says something, doesn't it?