USA total CO2 emissions are less than 14% of global emissions. You aren't doing the environment any favors by pretending that it's by targeting a subset of US population, that you are going to change anything relevant on global emissions.
Honestly though, limiting harmful things and/or pushing people towards the better solution is one of the roles of government. This is how we beat the prisoner paradoxes of modern life. For example I don't believe we should ban cars (nobody does), but I welcome good, affordable and available public transport. People living in places with good public transport don't have to depend so heavily on their car, and everyone is happier.
Yes, climate change is very real. But my current opinion is that 'solutions' are not. Especially while we're still fighting/escalating/anticipating wars between nations.
Solutions would take a truly global effort, but people generally don't want to sacrifice their democracies and have a 'new world order/world government' imposed upon them, let alone have their elected leaders puppeteered by shadowy forces 'above' them.
I'm surprised how many people have double-thinking. Bother about climate change and also fully support war production.
Cars, meat, heating and AC are not rights, and banning them - at at least moderating them within reason - is not totalitarian. And when it comes to the difference between living and at least cars and meat it's actually not such a hard choice.
Heating and AC are more complex: those can be life savers, especially when the climate gets more extreme. But there are other options: migrate to places where it isn't that hot or cold. And that's where we have a nice little feedback loop: on account of climate change the temperate zone where you are not expected to require much heating or much cooling is shrinking so you'll need more heating and more AC which will cause more energy to be pumped into the atmosphere.
Those 'little people' are still by and large the richest fraction of the world population (they have cars, eat meat, have heated houses and AC). It's the real poor who pay the price for all this.
According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, some things that aren't rights, are: - Gay marriage; - Abortion; - Self Determination of Gender; - Education above the fundamental level.
What if gas taxes were higher in the US (maybe a bit proportional to income?), and after 20 years there were instead lots of subways, and streets were bike and pedestrian friendly ... (like here where I live)
We have no right to prerequisites for being a productive worker (safe shelter, food, the ability to travel to a workplace)
But we have to maintain the right for people to breed a dozen kids if they feel like it, despite population being the multiplier that scales every single problem the world faces.
That's the big one which people don't understand. The poor that has five kids is doing more harm to the planet than the rich who has only one kid.
Wife and I decided, on purpose and for that reason, to have only one kid.
And no matter what we do during our lifetime, we're polluting less than people having more than one kid. It's a fact and a simple one. Yet people simply don't understand.
My father had four kids. Today's world problems are his fault and nobody is changing my mind on that.
And don't even get me started on people having many kids for religious purposes, to conquer the world with the women's bellies (as they say): they'll get the planet they deserve.
Btw don't know if you've seen: Mouse Heaven or Mouse Hell, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31905218
Targeting that subset in the US and other countries, seems to have real effects, the opposite to what you said.
(if whatever methods chosen to influence their behaviour, actually worked).
USA is a huge country, and compared to many Asian countries, it's not polluting anywhere near the same amount compared to their available natural resources.
The same way you may feel it's acceptable to tell Americans: "well, consume less", others else should feel acceptable to tell China and others: "well, procreate less".
[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/270164/fertility-rate-in...
[2] https://www.statista.com/statistics/269941/fertility-rate-in...
Look at the population pyramid - look at how much fewer people there are, below 30 (a sharp dip), and a small shortage of women on top of that.
That's 30 years lag
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_China (from 2020)
Surely if an American citizen buys a product from China, the emissions involved in producing that product and shipping it over are counted against America, right?
If the US ships rubbish to a foreign country where it's burnt (because they were the cheapest option), are those emissions counted against the US?
(Btw there are now some sibling comments)