Stupid solutions on the climate crisis

Cheaper cars:
Reducing fiscal taxes on cars is believed to renew the car park faster. Newer cars are more fuel efficient due to technological advances. Old cars are spewing out carbon dioxide. I imply that people still want fuel efficient big cars. Big cars aren't that fuel efficient if compared to small cars and motorcycles. The idea is to lower fuel consumption by lowering taxes in general. But what actually happens? An increasing population buy more cars! Such a government subsides fossil use. An increase in transportation probably outweighs an increase in fuel efficiency, according to the IPCC-report from 2007.

Electric cars:
The great thing about electric cars is that you don't need fossil fuel. But this puts the fossil fuel problem to a hold. Almost all electrical power is generated from fossil fuel. Therefore, the electric car cannot solve the energy consumption dilemma itself.

Turning off all lights for an hour:
Energy companies can notice a small decrease in energy consumption if "everyone" turn the lights off. But it's much better if you keep far away from your home for hours! Remember to turn your lights off, lower the heat and leave your car. Most accidents happens in your home. You will probably be safe from yourself, and you may use a bit less energy that way! Your home may be a great source of emissions, implied that you consume right there.

Buying environmental products
Some products may claim they are benefitting the environment. Some products may be less energy consuming to a certain degree. And other products scam you. The point is that the total consumption of greener products are still very energy consuming. I must confess that my life is certainly not sustainable. But what can I do? This is how society has become. As long as you carry a wallet with big money, then you are an environmental threat.

Carbon neutrality goal set
It is typical that some "western" firm sets a goal to become carbon neutral. In fact, many firms can achieve this definition of "emission reduction". Being carbon neutral requires that someone else will be responsible for your emissions. You may "neutralize" emissions by planting a tree, or by investing them in energy efficiency projects. But what if some "jerks" in some firm in an underdeveloped country wants to increase their consumption of energy? Buying projects will become more and more expensive, and increasingly difficult to find. Sooner or later the western firms have to try cut down on their own energy consumption. Carbon neutrality is therefore not achievable in the long run. And it's irresponsible to have such a goal. The definition doesn't mean anything.

Include forest in cap and trade agreement
(Or use forest carbon uptake as reduction in national emissions). This is simply greed. The money may save the rain forests to a certain degree, but it slows down the development of cleaner energy. It does also make cape and trade systems less efficient.

Solving a global problem on your own
The climate crisis is a global problem. Only international agreements can reduce emissions on global level.

Science and technology
That's our only hope. So why do not green research projects bloom? I think it's stupid.