I wonder if such major personal and individual sacrifices are actually worth it, and if at all effective, when we leave those handful of companies which spew massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into the environment to operate
Climate change solutions can only be implemented at the societal level, as is becoming abundantly clear.
Only instantaneously; integrated over the relevant timescales, the poor countries burn more while industrialising, and everyone (including the poor countries) installs renewables.
I visited Kenya about a decade ago, the taxi was old enough to not have electric windows (so I suspect electric cars will take a while to become affordable for Matatu drivers); there was a geothermal power station.
To actually solve the greenhouse gas problems needs everyone and everything to get greener, including air travel — given how long CO2 stays in the air, if we fixed everything worldwide except rail, that's still 400% of our global greenhouse gas budget.
Aviation is about 19x, cement 30x, livestock and manure 58x; yet all of those combined — rail, air, cement, and livestock & manure — are still only about a tenth of our emissions
Who do you think those companies serve and who consumes the end product of whatever they’re doing?
The title of the TV series "Are You Being Served?" refers to a customer receiving sales service from the store.
However, Grace Brothers (the aforementioned store) exists to make a profit for the "Old" and "Young" Misters Grace, so in that respect the company serves its owners.
The former use of "serve" is subordinate to the latter. Indeed, a widely held view is that a company serves its shareholders, and the goal of the company is to maximize shareholder wealth.
If this means using greenwashing or other forms of deceit to falsely persuade the public that the product isn't harmful, then go ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing
If it means ExxonMobil uses PR techniques, funding, and lobbying to discredit global warming research and limit restrictions on its ability to make money for its shareholders, then go ahead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_deni...
If it means persuading governments to grant tax breaks and other subsidizes for cheap fossil fuel, making most of the population dependent on continual cheap fossil fuel with no easy way to wean themselves off, then go ahead. Lock-in is great for shareholder wealth.
That's who those companies serve.
How the corpos go about doing that is largely irrelevant as they're only producing emissions so that individuals can consume their goods.