Trump admin sees a 7-degree F (~4 degree C) rise in global temperatures by 2100

[AxeI]

But hundreds of millions or billions of people voting for ecologists isn't?
You've provided no evidence for why a grassroots movement regarding lifestyles would be a pipedream, but you willingly assume that a grassroots political movement isn't.

Besides, and again, you admitted earlier that the political battle has been lost. How can you even expect regulations at this point? Or do you suddenly change opinion the moment personal efforts come into play?
It really isn't, unless you're talking about simply sheepishly putting a piece of paper in a ballot box. Political activism takes a lot of time. Heck, even on this forum, I spend more time explaining to people why they should do their part and how they can do it than I need to actually do it myself.

And yes, as you said, these lifestyle overhauls will have to be done anyway, there's no cutting it. So why the fuck not do it now rather than wait for regulations to force it on you?
You're a broken record. You've already made this claim in the other thread and I've already debunked it. It's, again, complete falsehood.

Politicians need a majority of people to vote for them to take office. That means if you don't have at least 50% of the population that thinks the same as you, your vote amounts to jack shit.
Meanwhile, the CO2 you save up on by changing your lifestyle doesn't up and materialize if less than half of the population does the same.

Besides, any form of industrial regulation will have limited effects, because they're constrained by physics. There isn't much in the way of groundbreaking technology that allows planes to save up on more than a few % of fuel. Thermal power plants can hardly have a better yield than 60%. Industrial processes that rely on combustion can't cut down much in terms of emissions either.

You know what can cut those emissions by half, though? Only using those products and services half as much.

Additionally, regulations take lots of time to be drafted and voted in, which is time during which CO2 continues to be pumped into the air. Politicians always get involved with lobbies anyway, and changing that in a short enough timespan? Now that is a pipedream.

Doing most of the things on that list would do a lot more than "slightly" reduce emissions, and doesn't require much in the way of efforts either.

If you want to respond, start by actually addressing this post, then this post, then this one. I won't repeat myself again.

All in all, as of now, you've still failed to address the crux of the question: Why shouldn't we do both?

[EcksDee]

Hm, yeah you're right. I'll have to look into it more but I'll refrain from posting on the topic for now.

Don't get me wrong, we're still beyond royally fucked, but maybe my points of view on the impact of individual action were off...

[Natrox]

I hope it doesn't come to that. As tough as things are right now, you're young and there's a lot of opportunities to achieve happiness.

I used to be suicidal, but as my mental health started to improve I started to live again. By coincidence, I am 25 now. In the past 6 years I've finished uni and started a career, learnt soldering and took it up as a hobby, polished up my programming skills, and I started trying to be more outgoing and met lots of friends in the process.

You have to somehow "force" yourself to make a change. If you're fed up with life, take it in a new direction to see if you like that better. I recommend you do like I did and pick up a hobby or trade of sorts.

If you keep in mind that life is largely up to you, I think you'll be fine in 6 years.