Another great insight, Nicholas!

First off, of course it could be wrong. I'm not married to these ideas. I just think it's a conversation worth having.

And I agree with you. Changing the behaviour of the largest offenders is necessary to change the tide of climate damage in a meaningful way.

But to me, the answer is "both/and". Yes, I focused the article around individual behaviour because I was reporting on Sinek's comments. However, I would still defend that we can't ignore individual behaviour to instead focus on more "corporate" players.

If the marketing was improved and individual understanding of and action on climate change improved, there would be a growing public consensus to demand change from corporate players. Although there is some demand on this--in my view, it's clearly not enough.

Again, I sympathize with your point and, as far as it's part of a "both/and" approach to the issue, I certainly agree with you.

Thanks for taking the time to read and interact with the ideas in the article.

Writing to inspire a world of empathy, possibility, and growth. Former faith leader; current MBA candidate. 👋 Say hi https://linkedin.com/in/michaeltouchton

Writing to inspire a world of empathy, possibility, and growth. Former faith leader; current MBA candidate. 👋 Say hi https://linkedin.com/in/michaeltouchton