@Sandra

Think about what you are saying here. You, an individual, can’t effect consumer pattern change on the wide/collective level. But you apparently can effect policy making, production, or marketing pattern change on the wide/collective level?

No.

Neither I nor collective individual action shy of near total compliance achieves this. The tactic as one of achieving the goal of ending negative externalising actions is utterly ineffective. The reason is that the more complete it becomes, the higher the rewards of defection. Simple #GameTheory payoff matrix.

A 1990s ex-junkie memoir I saw once had a cover reading something like "The problem with heroin is that the longer you stop the better that first next hit feels." Effectiveness of cure directly encourages relapse.

Individual action as signalling might have some merits.

But if you want to change the game you've got to change the rules, for everybody playing. Otherwise it's just #GreshamsLaw and a defectors' #RaceToTheBottom

I alone cannot accomplish either. Collectively, the rules change is the only efective mechanism. For signalling and messaging, restraint may be useful, but on an effort allocation, the smart strategy is 90% regulation & rules aimed at the system, 10% messaging interity.

And the whole "you're not doing enough personally" schtick can fuck right off. Because that's the countertactic I see, and quoted and linked at the top of this thread. It's what Annie Leonard's message is all about (I've been quoting it for years).

Wars aren't won by saints and purity scores.

1/