Individualistic thinking such as “don’t eat meat,” or “don’t have children,” is making a moral judgement as well as using the trivial answer to the problem. (If there were no humans there would be no human-caused climate change, amazing.)

Saying “don’t eat meat” is an individualistic proposal, but that doesn’t mean it is ineffective or a moral argument; reducing the carbon intensity of the food you eat is undeniably effective at reducing the demand for carbon intensive foods. It’s not the same as shutting down a factory farm, but it is still having an affect. It can’t be the only thing done, but saying “that’s an individualistic argument” seems like avoiding the fact that it is undeniably effective. Choosing to eat meat is an individualistic decision as well.

Not having children is more complicated. Humans don’t inherently have a net positive carbon offset, because we are able to create things like carbon sinks that more than offset that person’s individual carbon output. The problem is that our system as it stands actively discourages people from having a positive environmental effect. I choose not to have children, because in our current capitalist driven climate change train, having children is like bringing a log into a house fire; they’re not going to make a big difference but they are kindling nonetheless and will suffer for it.