That wouldn't accomplish anything; it would just free up more fossil fuels to be applied to marginal uses by people with far less restraint: "Hippies don't like oil? More for me!"
This is a collective action problem; if we don't collectively limit or penalize the emissions, we're just leaving grass on the commons for someone else to graze.
With that said, cutting back can prepare you for the time when collective limits or taxes are in place. It can also signal your own belief in the seriousness of the problem. But individually refusing to overgraze the commons cannot be blamed for commons going barren; the refusal to implement real limits, however, can.
And no, subsidies for more efficient grazing aren't "limits"; they make it worse.
This is a collective action problem; if we don't collectively limit or penalize the emissions, we're just leaving grass on the commons for someone else to graze.
With that said, cutting back can prepare you for the time when collective limits or taxes are in place. It can also signal your own belief in the seriousness of the problem. But individually refusing to overgraze the commons cannot be blamed for commons going barren; the refusal to implement real limits, however, can.
And no, subsidies for more efficient grazing aren't "limits"; they make it worse.