Basically, the same as making packaging which mixes metal, plastic and paper, and then telling you there's two places in your city you can drop it off for "recycling", so they've done their bit.
This argument works in reverse as well:
>Us consumers aren't responsible, it's you corporations for choosing high carbon options! So rather than making lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions (not driving a SUV, not eating meat, not living in a McMansion in suburbia), we just call it out and claim it's on them.
Individuals have very little control over most carbon emissions. Outside of choosing to have fewer children, and transportation-related activities, there really is very little an individual can do here. [1]
---
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed...
[1]: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541#...
Blaming individuals may be interesting morally but it makes for terrible public policy. It doesn't produce anything actionable. Imagine trying to fix ozone depletion with a voluntary labelling scheme and "blaming" people who use CFCs.
Marketers and the US government.
Marketers and companies in general have enormous power to manipulate people and yet they dodge responsibilities all the time.
AFAIK SUV sales replacing sedan sales is a trend that has been going on for decades[1]. Blaming it on "[car companies] don't want to put in the engineering effort" doesn't make sense.
[1] https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iukk8bw9OXn...
The concept of "carbon footprint" truly is corporate propaganda and deflection.
That does not imply that individuals are morally entitled to overconsume.