I agree there - if decent public transport is available, it will be used. And it's clearly the governments responsibility to provide that. Going by the chart, I would put "rethink mobility" in zone 2.
Damn, my OP really reads like liberal propaganda.
Sorry about that, that was really badly worded by me. I meant to express that behavorial change is a hard challenge, while (some) technological issues can 'simply' be solved by throwing money at it.
I am fully convinced that we need a radically different economic system that steers away from profit as ultimate goal.
Exactly. Don't make it a religion, just ask people to give vegetarian food a try until they crave meat. At least that approach worked for me - I could never see myself be a vegetarian. Turned out I am happy with eating meat twice a year.
I agree, people aren't as emotionally attached to their boilers. But while there are already plans discussed to phase out gas heating in the EU, for many buildings the cheaper and practical alternative has not arrived yet. That takes some convincing.
The climate action zones - tech vs behavior
Some things are easier to change than others - and the really hard things often don't require money, but a change in people!
Edit: Sorry for the shitty OP, I should have known better than to post in a hurry.
It reads as if the population is primarily responsible for combating the climate crisis, while industry and government are off the hook because money has little effect.
What I actually meant to express was that technological adjustments that only cost money are easier to implement than changes to people's habits. Perhaps this is a naive idea because it assumes that there is the political will to make these investments and that the industry is forced to cooperate accordingly. Addressing the climate crisis requires many changes, and economic profitability must be secondary. But achieving this is perhaps one of the most difficult adjustments society requires.