OK, I take your point, to an extent. TGZ is trying to claim that consumer pressure didn't help create the American EPA. Semantically, that may be right, but that's not the main point: the EPA came into being because of public pressure, something both TGZ and dann claim is impossible.
I don't think that I've seen either of them claim that? In fact, it quite looks like what you had quoted from TGZ directly refutes your claim here.
There is also an argument here that consumer choices don't affect supply and demand.
I don't think I've seen that argument either. Some somewhat similar ones, sure, but ones that generally stay at least technically true. When dann repeatedly stressed "as an individual" and equated what was said with trying to stop a war by being a conscientious objector, that was true, as far as it went. That what dann said didn't apply to large groups, unlike what you intended, and did not include acknowledging the part of what you said about also putting pressure on industry are both points well worthy of note. What dann said didn't cross the line into falsehood, though.
Aridas: do you believe that consumer choices have no effect on supply and demand, and that therefore, a reduced demand for meat would have no discernable effect on its supply?
Of course consumer choices, taken at large scales, do matter. A reduced overall demand for meat would eventually have an effect on supply. I'm pretty sure that that particular point hasn't been meaningfully in dispute, though. There are related points that have been made, such as that total worldwide consumption does actually seem to be going up. That remains true even if there are many new vegans/vegetarians every day (and a hopefully usually smaller number of existing ones who stop being vegans/vegetarians or cheat). Denying that new vegans/vegetarians exist was eye-rollingly dumb, of course, as would be trying to claim that their choices and efforts are meaningless, but overemphasizing their effect isn't going to help much either.
My point, both to dann and to TGZ, is that we can affect what's going on around us. Whether it's through consumer choices or public pressure is, to me, immaterial.
Immaterial isn't the same as embracing fallacy, though, and trying to berate others because they're a bit sensitive to fallacy (especially when there's excellent cause to be sensitive to it) isn't really a way to gain some advantage.
When it comes to climate change, especially, there's excellent reason to be sensitive to conflation, confusing the issues, and so on. dann's recent "carbon footprint" point highlighted that yet again. The point that "carbon footprint" as a concept was popularized by Big Oil to try to avoid responsibility is a reasonable point to make. It doesn't somehow change or absolve the parts that each of us plays, of course, but it does more meaningfully point at what's going on. A powerful, irresponsible, and profit-driven force is trying to avoid taking responsibility for its actions. In the end, it's up to us to make sure that it's held accountable, despite its efforts. Without doing that, our various collective individual actions to try to mitigate damage are fairly certainly not going to be anywhere close to as effective as we want them to be.
Finally, it is interesting that you have taken the time to take issue with this point, given the number of outright lies and denial of facts from other posters, that you have let pass. Curious. Most curious.
Much of the time, I let things that are addressed by others pass without additional comment from me. I took issue with the point, specifically, in part because it was not addressed at that point. That wasn't all, though. It was particularly annoying to me because of how badly you chose to behave there. You chose to berate others after your misuse was called out and have used arguments that were refuted in what you quoted! Hence, I poked at some of the crux of the issue in play, in hopes that you would take a step back, take a deep breath, and engage in more rational discussion and debate.
Aridas: Let me then, in light of your valid points, rephrase:
Consumer behaviour affects industries.
Public opinion affects governments.
How does that sound? OK with that?
Sure.
Consumer behaviour affects industry through the mechanism of supply and demand. Businesses have no choice but to adapt to changing demands, or else they'll go bust.
Governments respond to voter concerns (in democratic countries), and enact environmental protection laws. Governments can curtail or change the actions of industries.
The point being, as individuals, provided there are enough of us pushing in the right direction, we can make meaningful changes.
Sure.
I don't see any flaw in my reasoning here- do please tell me if I'm wrong.
TGZ: I fell into your trap there. Kudos. Well done- you got me there. I posted hastily, and was called out on it. I do wonder, though, if you feel this petty skulduggery will in some way help us to progress towards net zero? Somehow I doubt it.
Umm... the part to take issue here with may be that you think that TGZ set a trap there, rather than you tripping over your own feet and trying to push the blame for that elsewhere. *shrug* To err is human, though, and seeking to learn from one's mistakes and do better in the future is about the best that one can honestly do.
". But this would be a huge mistake. If we do nothing it will be much much worse. Even if we only manage to get the temperature to level off it will be a lot better than climbing exponentially. We can a handle a stasis even if it's bad, We can't handle it continuously getting worse.