4.75 TONS of carbon sure sounds like a lot...
Based on my best guesses from the Internet (Thanks Wolfram-Alpha), The weight of the Atmosphere is ~5.1 x 10^18 Kg, C02 is approx 395ppm. CO2 fraction is then 2.00 x 10^17 Kg or ~4.7 x 10^13 TONS One percent of that is ~4.7 x 10^11 TONS. So we need approx 10^11 cars to make up 1% of the CO2 fraction. My point, (and I do have one) is that TONS sound like a lot, but the Atmosphere is really BIG. Also 395ppm is not really a lot of CO2 as compared with historical evidence.

Of course the benefits trickle down, just look at the cost curve of something complicated like a computer.
If it wasn't for standardization and automation, the price would have never been cheap enough to be widely used.
Walmart (for example) may not be liked but they have saved the average consumer quite a lot of money on their purchases based on their efficiencies of scale and automation.
You can also argue that Walmart also encourages the disposable economy, and I agree.

In my opinion, problems in the poorest areas of the US inner city are a direct result of no incentive to get a(n) (better) education, a (better) job, etc... when housing is subsidized, food is subsidized, Internet and phone is subsidized, etc... Vote for the people who will keep the gravy train rolling, and in turn they will give you just enough stuff not to starve.

Change the paradigm.

You don't need water, oxygen, etc... if you don't send humans. Private enterprise will do the cost analysis, and I bet they will send very sophisticated robots first. Go to the Asteroid belt to mine for things, go into low/medium orbit to develop new materials and manufacturing processes, etc... All with a focus on what is the best return on investment, not what political whims are fashionable.

I agree with others that Kennedy's speech about going to the moon was brilliant, but we were developing heavy lift capability anyway for the military, and maybe starting a 'space program' deflected some of the criticism that would have come about of we had developed the heavy lift capability, etc... with only military interests in mind.

Maybe we watch so much TV because we start to watch before our interested show is on, and then absentmindedly continue to watch after its over. Or how about channels that alternate reruns between two different shows during the late afternoon. To watch two reruns of a show you want to watch you sit through one episode of a show you don't really want to watch. Or how about that of the 157 hours of TV watching about 1/5-1/3 of that was sitting through / ignoring commercials.

I watch Netflix / Hulu / Amazon, etc... because of a few things. The ability to watch the shows I want, when I want. The ability to catch up on shows by watching a whole season, if necessary. The ability to watch old shows on my terms. And also less commercials. I'm not opposed to commercials, but they all seem to be either cars, car insurance, or feminine hygiene products.

I think Hulu only shows two 30 second commercials before or after a TV episode. Compare this to interrupting the show every 10 minutes for 2 minutes or so of commercials on cable / broadcast TV. And this is with me paying $60-$100 every month for the 'privilege' of cable TV.

I don't remember any commercials on Amazon Prime, but I may be wrong.

I have a similar situation with American football. I'm a Chicago Bears fan living in SW Pennsylvania. Sometimes I don't get any games at all on Sundays!. I now listen to the NFL and NASCAR on SIRIUS radio.

PS: When will the broadcasters learn that we may want to watch other sports too like Rugby, Irish hurling, and Aussie football.