But the companies have a large carbon foodprint to deliver a product or service for the consumer.

When I buy a large SUV / Truck, and never drive it, is that not counted negative towards my carbon foodprint?

> But the companies have a large carbon foodprint to deliver a product or service for the consumer.

I agree that that's _why_ they have a large carbon footprint, no company is just burning fossil fuels for fun. But it doesn't change a) the fact that they do have a large carbon footprint, and b) entire cities could ban gas cars and everyone could take public transit and it still wouldn't make a dent in the global carbon footprint.

As I think you're alluding to over-consumerism as a cause of companies having a large carbon footprint, that's part of it. But unless everyone just stops consuming, it's not gonna change anything. If it were legislated that big companies needed to reduce their carbon footprint by X% by Y date I think that would be the most effective, short term at least.

> When I buy a large SUV / Truck, and never drive it, is that not counted negative towards my carbon foodprint?

I don't know why it'd be negative. Zero or neutral, at best, but not negative. Negative would entail you're somehow removing CO2 from the environment.