In the US taxes, local regulations, and government subsidies offset effects of personal changes so as to hold up the status quo. Although the individual actions don't have much of an impact, they seem to give people a sense of control in a bleak system in which they have no real power.

If so many people stopped eating meat that it impacted the industry, the government could (hypothetically) create legislation to include cattle with other subsidized agri products or perform actions to otherwise incentivize export of that product to compensate for a change in domestic meat consumption trends. There is scarcely a politician who would oppose this, because who wants to be responsible for hurting the American farming family?

In the energy industry, aside from the prohibitive direct costs to the individual, ongoing fees and taxes on more energy efficient homes or vehicles can disenfranchise the public from choosing better options. An example of this is the NV solar energy collapse, which is now on the rebound- but which also highlights how fragile reliance on direct consumers for Earth-saving activities can be. The overall cost is just too high for enough average people to make the switch in an impactful way. And, even if they did, Uncle Sam can swoop in to stimulate the coal and fossil fuel based energy industry.

When it comes to pollution, some resource companies are making so much money they can continue to violate government regulations, pay their fines, and continue to profit. And regulations about what is safe (and in what levels) can slide back and forth with updated research (performed by university departments funded by industries). It's no secret that Monsanto funds a good deal of the research into the safety of it's own products, or that the EPA & Monsanto have jointly defied independent research against their pollutants for decades.

The supply/demand concept behind individual use patterns is mythological in our pseudo-capitalistic economy. Changes would really have to come from massive internal industry overhaul and ongoing innovation (with a hit to the bottom line). I really don't think the government could be a leader in these changes (because it would cause a major job market & economy shakeup). Plus, the government, the industries, and the people have become accustomed to the money generated by the way things are now. It's like the small individual changes are the only things that are being done because they keep people functionally self-satisfied without actually changing anything in the longrun.