Assuming for a moment we shared any common language, SO MUCH INTERVIEWING. Especially Bohdan, since he'd be delighted to discourse at length about his ideas. I doubt anyone would shoot me if I was careful not to startle them.
Fanart for a really great web original scifi/historical fiction/genre-buster. He's an extremely heavily modified cyborg who “runs” on a captured full-sized star stored in hyperspace in addition to (or instead of) his regular biological metabolism, which, it hit me, makes him a living one-man Dyson Shell.
This was drawn with pencil and sharpie on a post-it note and then flipped to negative, and the clothes are reffed from a 1200s Byzantine ikon, because the dude lived there for the whole thing. And no, he doesn’t actually glow (unless he wants to).
I would say that, thread-wide, we should distinguish between "no easy, single answer" and "no answers, period." I mean, most things, let alone multifaceted global problems, lie somewhere between "One weird trick!!!1" and "Guess we should all find somewhere comfy to lie down and wait for the end of the world."
Is being comfortable and having nice things always/necessarily tied to C02 emissions? (Alternate energy sources are big in France, Iceland, Denmark (thanks to surprise sanctions from Iran in the 70s, in WINTER, oops), Spain, Brazil (ethanol, but check me on this one), and rainy or sunny parts of the States.)
There's also times when you can aggregate induvidual efforts -- for example, I started a recycling program in my secondary school when I was a wee doodler, and I know someone who tweaked an industrial design (including a circuit on a design to cut off the lights when a device wasn't in use) that's probably saved millions of tons of carbon by now. Any scaling up of effort is good, I'd say.
I'd actually say none of those sugestions really reduce quality of life, but I'm also not convinced they're the most efficient ways to reduce carbon. (With the exception of number of kids -- that COULD reduce quality of life. People (unsurprisingly) tend to have strong personal feelings about reproducing or, well, not reproducing. On the other hand, the world population is predicted to plateau after another billion or so, iirc. ) For example, I'd bet the carbon output over a year for, say, the US, from treating alcohol poisoning could be beat by a coal-fired plant in a week.
Also, what about people who simply can't get to work without taking a car or bus?
This shows some breakdown, and overall it looks very slanted towards the large-scale and industrial. I would bet my year's earnings that most of that electricity slice isn't leaving the bathroom light on. (Even if I turn mine off and don't feel my quality of life suffers from that. :p )
I think this exaggerates (sadly) how much influence private individuals have. What if your city has no (or extremely minimal) public transit? What about massive industrial setups that produce a ton of carbon, private or public sector? What about the developing world? I'm not saying that this isn't crazy important, but it seems like a more effective track for induviduals is to put pressure on people in positions of power, rather than entirely "me, all by my lonesome, is going to fix this."
(And before anyone cries foul, this is coming from a tightwad when it comes to buying clothes (I'm still vain, hah), a diehard recycler, and somebody who doesn't eat much meat.)