So it's already possible to not have to change a normal light bulb for 10 years — in fact there's currently a bulb that's been burning for 118 years.
The parent comment actually makes a good point, and shifting the blame for global warming to non-corporate entities is disingenuous. Sure, go ahead and recycle, buy LEDs instead of incandescent bulbs, buy local produce, these are all good things to do and I would never discourage them, but let's not buy into the nonsense that it's going to make a dent compared to say, shipping containers (https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/cargo-container-shipping...). To do so would move focus away from where things really need to change.
If I was someone partial to conspiracy theories, I might point out that this shift in focus is convenient for the corporate entities I alluded to.
You're touching on an opinion of mine that has hardened a lot in the last decade. You aren't going to solve systemic issues by going after random individuals. Systemic issues exist because some center of power benefits. Keep the focus on them.
That was specifically for "not having to change light bulbs for a decade" being "a huge motivation to switch".
As I said, I would never discourage people using LEDs, recycling etc. for other very good reasons. I just think it's important that we're honest on the impact of me using 2 LED bulbs in my house, vs. an entire office block having their lights and air conditioning on overnight.
Let's focus on making changes where it will have a large impact, like the shipping containers I mentioned. Anything else is counterproductive.
