So, I'll try and bite in with as much charity as I can muster. The main sentiment I want to push back against is in your final three paragraphs.
To summarize:
-- You, individually, have made significant motions to reduce your impact in the form of reducing emissions, picking up trash, reducing waste, and reducing energy consumption.
-- The 'Resistance'* you identify comes from people with more resources than you. You argue that those pretend they can do very little to change.
My summary of what you are arguing for in terms of how difference can be made is focused on individual action and change. My impression of your argument is that we, either alone or as a set, are or can be responsible for making the differences that will or could result in a significant difference regarding climate change.
I think its disingenuous and irresponsible to put the onus on individuals. Most people on this planet are in a daily struggle to survive and the idea that they have the agency to make the kinds of changes you say that they need to make is presumptuous and frankly, classist. Most families and individuals on this planets are have 80-90% of their waking hours filled with activities that barely sustain them at above struggling conditions. They have 0 additional bandwidth to make the kinds of changes you are describing because even a few mistakes or wasted actions will cause their lives to tumble into collapse where they end up homeless or destitute and begging on the streets. And yes, while living in a hedgerow behind the walmart will result in an overall lower rate of population and over consumption, I don't think global impoverishment is a viable strategy towards reversing climate change.
The second issue with this way of thinking is that as easily as some one changes their actions or behavior for the better, this can just as easily be reversed.
A third issue, is that focusing on individual action only addresses the terminal node in a chain of consumption, the visible obvious bit. What it fails to address is the 'under-the-hood' components of a chain of consumption, when its the 'under-the-components' that represent much/ most of the real environmental impacts of over consumption.
Nibbling around the edges of issues is not going to result in the kinds of change we need. The kinds of change we need have to be baked into the cake of how we engage with society, which means they'll have to be somewhat central to how society is constructed. Fundamentally, I would argue, the unit of organisation or incorporation needs to be addressed. Organisations and corporations need to be attached to the outcome of their behaviors in the same ways that individuals are. A massive overhaul of how we organize institutionally needs to make anything other than a middling difference.
A final point I'll make is that we've put the onus on individuals to make their own difference for the past 60 years and the effects of this strategy are self evident. Individuals simply can not collectively make the kinds of difference required to move the needle with an issue as entire or existential as climate change. Individuals have been engaging in the kind of change implementation strategy you are describing for 60+ years. Consumption and pollution haven't gotten better they've gotten worse.
My proposal to address this: Corporations and institutions need to be able to quantify and address the externalities of their productions before any profits can be made. For changes to be effective we need governments and we need the ability to create regulation which is central to they way our societies operate. Putting the onus on individuals is a short term, ineffective strategy, both in theory and in practice. It puts additional pressure on people who can barely handle it, and is easily reversed. It does nothing to address the vast majority of externalities related to consumption (the ones not visible at the supermarket shelves). It provides a psychological relief valve for people to think that they've 'done enough' and precludes the need for them to invest in institutional change. Addressing change as an individual is nibbling at the edges of something that needs to be addressed systematically at the core of how societies operates. Citing the individual as the unit over which change can or should operate is at best an anesthetic and at worst, prevents the ability to implement change at an institutional level.
*I think you should define what you mean here. I'm not gonna go chase down that definition for some keyboard fencing. Also its your interpretation of that word that matters.