Consumption that dumps carbon in the air needs to be replaced by consumption that doesn't. Power needs to be solar/wind/nuclear, cars need to be electric, things which are done cheaply with hydrocarbon sources need to be replaced with more expensive things with sustainable sources.
Trying to make people significantly lower their standard of living with fear of future consequences will not work. It just won't. In two ways... one: a lot of what's happened has already happened and is inevitable, there's no turning back from a few degrees of warming, oceans rising, and climate patterns changing; two: people won't do it.
Trying to chase the line of solving environmental problems with consumption reduction is pissing into the wind. You have to try to do things which will actually have effects instead of trying the impossible.
If that's done large scale, it's as if the world population were divided by 2 instantly
Reducing our footprint would help a lot tree to grow (they don't really like pollution and climate changes), but obviously we should still help forest to grow and migrate north (in north hemisphere), it's just not where the big win is currently
We can both reduce our carbon footprint AND plant trees.
Don't pay corrupt countries to be less corrupt, charge them a fee that makes bad practices more expensive than good ones.
This is a game. Dictators and developing economies are good at taking incentive payments and pocketing them.
Asking foxes to grow more chickens definitely gets you more chickens but you don’t get the benefits, they do.