duckduckgo’d: ‘economist won a nobel prize for his theory that people don’t act 100% rationally so that’s why economic models were failing’ results was this:(theconversation(dot)com link), so I guess Richard Thaler is who you’re looking for.

Emm, what? I’d say rampant photosynthesis by cyanobacteria is not a great way to tackle climate change. Yes, it will draw down CO2, but also produce O2. O2 is way more reactive and toxic than CO2, and generally not something you want to have too much off (unless you want to burn/explode something that is).

Maybe another ‘great oxygenation event’ is not what we should strife for…?

That is aside from other potential negative consequences of cyanobacterial blooms, which generally kill other life through toxins or by shading deeper water layers (and subsequent oxygen depletion when built up organic matter breaks down, leading to death bottom areas in the sea)

Sure, which is why I mentioned (twice) that everyone should try and limit their emissions in my original comment.

What you however skipped in your reply is the fact that the richest 8 people limiting their emissions has the same effect as the 792 people beneath that limiting their emissions. From a perspective of ‘quick wins’ (which we sorely need), I am totally in favour of placing more responsibility on those with the highest emissions (without anyone neglecting their responsibility, so please don’t just point out one group as ‘responsible’ to pivot away the blame).

In the same vein, BP pivoting away the blame has about the same impact as thousands (millions?) of individuals pivoting away the blame, which is why they are (or at least should be) held to a higher standard.

According to your source, the top 1% emit 50 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. The top 0.1% emit 200 tonnes of CO2/capita/yr. That is still an insane increase the wealthier one becomes.

Not saying that one should not try to limit their emissions (we definitely should stop buying stuff from amazon/big companies, if not to limit emissions, at least to break their monopolies), but there is definitely some low hanging fruit in that top percentage (e.g. having 800 people limit emissions is going to be harder when you have the same effect by just limiting the 8 at the top).

Also you’re last sentence is quite hostile, BP definitely came up with it to avoid their responsibility and pivot it to other people. The idea might not be ‘bad’ per se, but if you do it so to avoid your own responsibility, it is definitely bad practice (which, again, is why each of us should try to limit our carbon emissions)