But as for your first sentence, that's why I said "you can talk about the constraints on people's choices." Regardless of what shapes and limits those, however, there will have to be big changes in the way people, esp American people, live if we're going to get the climate thing under control. The rhetorical tactic of blaming corporations evades the fact that driving to work all alone, or living in 3000 sq ft houses, or a whole lot of other things are just not sustainable. You can blame Exxon all you like but daily life has to change.
............
At this point I'm not interested in blaming anyone.
To me, it's sufficient to say that for various reasons we, as a species, have worked ourselves into a situation which requires a big old re-design. The biggest in human history. Quite exciting, really.
These are the kinds of super-large issues science fiction (or, what's that? "speculative fiction"?) readers have been pe-dealing with for years. Now you accursed muggles have been forced to 'think differently'.
Many of the "various reasons" can be traced to the capitalist lust for growth. Others are traceable to the fact that hydrocarbons are a powerful and versatile fuel source...something earlier peoples, regardless of their cultural configuration, would have eagerly deployed had it been available.
For a magical slice of time, 3000 sq ft houses made sense to a surprisingly sizable chunk of the US population. Such homes seemed financially do-able and the energy requirements were either ignored or explained away (if you aren't concerned about energy production methods and carbon output, you're not likely to think too hard about your home's "footprint"...except in terms of its util billing load).
Along with those big-ass houses, big families became popular again in recent decades. Some of my friends filled their 3000 sq. ft. homes with six or more kids like farming families in a Steinbeck novel ("dude, I know you guys moved to Amish country but you didn't have to start living like them"). These kids have to go to soccer matches and band and ballet and gymnastics and so on. A lot of driving. Oh, and a lot of trips to energy consuming malls to buy things needed or wanted. Plus, your aging ma and pa need all sorts of stuff too. You can't grow Depends diapers in your neo-Victory garden.
So here's the thing, "lifestyles" (what a steaming pile of shit of a word) must indeed change. But where should the focus be? Should we say, 'your house is too big, you have too many kids and you drive too much with too few people in your ride you friggin basterd!" Or, should we say, 'listen mate, I understand that you've got to do a lot of driving to do right now and the kids need a little leg room but how about using a vehicle which doesn't add to our problems and retrofitting your house to be less of a hog. Oh, and by the by, how about helping me pressure Washington to make rules forcing everyone, big and little, corporate and private, good looking and godawful to get with the fucking program. With appropriate incentives and aid, of course.'
I wouldn't care a rat's ass if Wendy or Matt drove solo all day and all night to wherever their hearts desired IF the vehicles they piloted were zero emissions (or at least, zero C02). Also, you can have your 3000 sq ft house so long as we can figure out a way to make the water and power requirements reasonable. And, moving upstream, if the power plant keeping it lit and comfy didn't belch a heady carbon brew.
This is a transition plan. Eventually, people would look around at the changed situation (made possible by the breathing room we acquired via retro-fitting the "un-sustainable"...grrrr... lifestyle) and alter their behaviors accordingly.
.d.