I totally agree with you that our unhinged consumption behavior is the core problem. And with AI we stepped on the accelerator again.

But regarding your second statement. The actual problem is the greenhouse effect of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere which traps the suns energy in our atmosphere heating up oceans, ice and landmass. The heat we produce is negligible compared to the energy the sun sends every day. The greenhouse gases are the problem. And you are right, pulling away that blanket so that more heat can dissipate into space will take a looong time (growing trees) or cost an insane amount of (clean) energy, reversing the chemical processes of burning oil, gas and coal.

> Gamers complaining about disc less games despite that problem pipeline and waste.

Tbf the issue is the user-hostile parameters of buying a diskless game. Most people would be happy to download their games if they could back them up to a thumb drive and never get locked out of them and sell the game when they’re done with it.

Seems deeply tangential, but it’s not. Blaming people for wanting a physical thing because the alternative is being further abused by a corporation - that’s a miss. Be mad at game platforms for not offering real ownership in whatever the most climate-friendly way possible. Be mad at governments for not forcing companies to cost in the negative externalities of their business.

If you want less of something, tax it. Support consumption based taxes like the FairTax in the US which would tax new goods at a high rate while used goods would be tax free. This encourages keeping items for longer, repairing rather than replacing, and purchasing used goods over new ones.

Global co2 emissions are at an all time high.

Co2 parts per million are a stock, like the level of water in a bathtub. Annual emissions are a flow, like how strongly the water is flowing in.

The tub is fuller than ever before AND filling at the fastest rate ever.

The problem is that carbon energy is useful. So unless something globally beats almost all use cases then somewhere marginally it will be worth burning vs not burning it.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions

While yes the emissions are down from 2007 and majority of it has been driven by the shift away from coal in power generation.

However, every other sector has been rather flat in terms of emissions since the 90s. When you account for the fact that a large amount of industries have moved to China and other developing countries, the fact that emissions from industries have been flat, means that the overall consumption has gone up.

If you account for the emissions that we’ve offshored, we’d not be looking so good.

> Both Europe and US's emissions are significantly (18%-30%) below their peak

Because they outsource their dirty work. To get a true picture of US/EU emissions you need to factor in the factories in Asia that are producing their consumer goods, as well as the global transport network that supports this.

How much of that is just outsourcing much of our industry to Asia/etc.?

How many die from cold in the summer?

Are you saying that no billionaire profits from the consumption of others?

And, if some do, do they not maximise that profit by seeking to maximise the consumption of others?

> China is also likely rapidly de-carbonizing right now

Huh. "China’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell by 1% in the final quarter of 2025, likely securing a decline of 0.3% for the full year as a whole" [1].

So "rapidly de-carbonising" is wrong. But decarbonising per se is correct.

[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-co2-emissions-ha...

China is not rapidly de-carbonizing. They've put off even starting to transition to clean energy by 15 years and they lag behind the other nations. They shouldnt be where the US is as the US has done an awful job. They should be where the EU is.

Both China and the US have similar carbon emission growth rates (0.3-0.5%).

And that does nothing to stop the collective 8 GT of carbon emissions coming from India and the other countries I listed with an average emissions increase rate of around 3-5%.

1.1 GT combined but shrinking yearly by 1-3%, which isn't enough to make up for the combined increase in carbon emissions from India, ASEAN, MENA, LatAm, and Russia.

Yes, and?

That's why nothing will happen.

Developing countries like India, Indonesia, and Vietnam are continuing to expand their emissions as they industrialize. All are expected to have an GDP growth rate in the 6-8% range over the next decade, as will their peers across Asia, so the carbon footprint globally will only increase.

Even China's emissions rate aren't decreasing - they're stagnant, which is a good shift, but not enough to turn the tide given how large China's existing carbon footprint is.

Edit: can't reply

> but they're not going to expand by taking on coal and fossil fuels...

India [0], Vietnam [1], and other large industrializing nation in Asia have all doubled down on expanding coal usage over the last 6 months. And that's ignoring increased usage of NatGas and Oil.

[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/india-will-use-more-...

[1] - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/vietnam-looks-more-c...