Who votes/voted against taking at least some regulatory/industrial action (in the US)? Who voted for politicians who de-neutralised and split the US news landscape?

And I'm asking what kind of emissions those are. Do they include the indirect emissions from sold fossil fuels or not

average us persons carbon footprint is 16 tons, worldwide its 4 Europe averages 2-5 tons just FYI

The demand exists because there is machinery all around the world that was designed to run on fuels derived from fossil hydrocarbons. To eliminate the demand, all of that machinery must be replaced with alternatives that do not run on fossil fuels.

Some of the alternatives exist now and are available on the market today, although some are still prohibitively expensive for many, and not all of the newer machines have all the necessary supporting infrastructure. Much more needs to be done by governments to make non fossil fuel machinery accessible and affordable, and to rapidly build out the necessary infrastructure.

Some of the existing machinery does not yet have a non fossil fuel alternative available. For that machinery, fossil fuels are still necessary. Once again, governments must do more, to help speed up R&D on new technologies, and to make sure those technologies will be affordable and accessible once they are ready for market deployment, and, again, that all the necessary supporting infrastructure is in place.

Look, I know it's hard because the world is designed around cars, especially the US and Canada. I get that most people had no say in the world getting to be this way. They were born into a world where cars dominate transportation. The oil companies spent millions lobbying for a world that works this way, systematically working to destroy the other options.

But, that doesn't absolve you of responsibility. That doesn't mean that you can blame the companies that make the gas that you use and take no responsibility yourself. In particular, the best-selling vehicles in the US are huge pick-up trucks. Almost nobody who buys one of those truly needs it. They're burning twice as much fuel as necessary just to have some kind of status symbol. In addition to that, the way most people use their cars is extremely inefficient. Carpooling is rare, most people move tons of steel and rubber around just for their own personal use. People also choose to live in the suburbs where there are no public transit options, instead of a smaller place in the city where there are buses.

I hate this take that it's the oil companies that are responsible for climate change. Yes, they lobbied hard to make the world we live in now. But, at the same time, if they had $0 in sales, they'd emit $0 in pollution because there would be no justification to run all their various machines, plants, etc.

Consumers have choices. If you truly need a vehicle, maybe it could be a small hatchback with a manual transmission instead of an F-150. Maybe you don't need to drive your own personal car to work, and could instead share a car ride with a cow-orker. Maybe you don't need to drive out to eat, or drive to the movies, and could stay home instead. Maybe you could use the bus sometimes. Yeah, a lot of these choices are inconvenient, and not using your car means using up a lot of your precious time. But, that's a choice you're making. Remember, when you ride ALONE you ride with Hitler!