That part reads like parody.
The changes on the individual consumer side do the least. They are just a deflection from what actually needs to be done - regulations and enforcement over industrial polluters.
It might not be dietary change to veganism, but when I ask, “What steps have you taken…” I want to hear a reasonable answer, not “Well if I change it doesn’t matter so someone else needs to change…”
"I will prevent wind powerplants, I will scream 'communism' each time some wants cleaner plants, I will pretend global warning does not exist, because every single person who wants to do opposite did not turned themselves into vegetarian and some people still fly". Oh, and I also pretend I am the only not hypocritical one here.
Agitating for political change.
We are no longer at the point of do x instead of y. We need to do it all, put fossil fuel comapnies out of business and change your diet.
Your linked ChatGPT-structured listicle is sound in what it proposes for the individual, but spends no time motivating the change or balancing out of political organizing. Like how to balance individual action versus political action? A big fat nothing. The one single hinge: evErY cHanGe MatteRs. This trivial observation is supposed to balance nine individual-effort phrased points versus one limp-wristed political action point.
At least it admits its corporate stooge tradition by mentioning BP and “carbon footprint”.
We are told that we need a cutthroat and efficient economy for commodities. For sweaters and automobiles. But for not ruining the planet? We need to incentivize individuals to not-do-bad-things. These are not serious ideas.
> I support the goal, but worry its a distraction.
You support people opposing data centers. Presumably you think that building them is bad. And presumably pressure against data centers can help them not be built. Which means that you would get less of the bad things. And yet this development which can cause less of the bad things is a distraction? This isn’t really coherent.
[1]: Curiously this critique is about feeling like you are solving the problem without the consequence explicitly outlined as not solving the problem. Is feeling better while also helping solve the problem... a problem?