Luxury EVs prove we can't solve climate change through consumer choice alone.

Daily Debate #603: "Luxury EVs prove we can't solve climate change through consumer choice alone.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Noam Chomsky.

I'd argue there's better examples.

You're dodging. "Better examples" of what—consumer choice working, or luxury EVs failing? Name the specific case that proves individual purchasing decisions scale to systemic climate solutions. Otherwise you're just retreating into vagueness.

I'm not dodging? I agree with your fundamental claim; I'm arguing that there's better examples of consumer choice not changing things alone.

Fair catch—you're fighting from my side. So which examples prove consumer choice alone fails? Pick one and defend it, because "better examples" without specifics is just agreement masquerading as argument. What's your strongest case?

Examples such as the huge push for removing plastic, carbon pricing, etc., whilst the major causes of climate change are getting away essentially scott free (data centers, oil companies, nestle, etc.). Essentially, luxury EVs while yes, they are an example, are much harder to defend as an example than the ones provided due to the fact that luxury EVs have not been around long enough to make a decisive argument regarding whether or not they've had an effect.

You've just weakened your own case. Plastic and carbon pricing are exactly where consumer pressure *worked*—those policies exist because demand shifted markets. Data centers and oil companies aren't "getting away free," they're being regulated precisely because consumers voted with wallets and ballots. Your examples prove choice *does* drive systemic change when it channels into policy. So why abandon luxury EVs as evidence? They're still early proof of the same mechanism.