The bullshit is that politicians continue to only take action against consumers when the real polluters, corporations and the military, continue to go unchecked because lobbying pays.
I don't know how to feel about the meme that governments should target big corporation rather than small consumers. On the one hand, I like it that it makes an environmental message easier to swallow for the masses, because they feel like they're not the ones who have to make an effort. On the other hand, it's quite disingenuous to pretend the outcome is different from simply reducing the amount of energy available to live a materially comfortable life for everyone.
> I don't know how to feel about the meme that governments should target big corporation rather than small consumers.
That's not what was stated. The objection is that hardly anything is done regarding big corporations.
E.g. only in 2020 shipping will have to use low sulphur fuel (max 0.50%). However, companies are allowed to install scrubbers. These devices allow for the environmental impact to continue. This as they take out the sulphur at the detection point, then dump the sulphur in e.g. the water. This is way cheaper than actually using low sulphur fuel. Interestingly enough, there is no availability of 0.50% sulphur fuel. There's 3.5% and 0.10%. They get to 0.50% by mixing the fuel! They've (International Maritime Organization) should've gone for 0.10% and not allowed any scrubbers.
Airline industry: Heavily subsidized, fuel has almost no tax on it. Taking a plane is often way cheaper than a train, while the environmental impact is quite in favour of the train.
Per parent: "Taking a plane is often way cheaper than a train, while the environmental impact is quite in favour of the train."
Until we get synthetic jet fuel, we need to impose some kind of carbon tax on it in order to correctly reflect the environmental impact of different modes of transport.
