As with many problems, economic concerns tend to rear their ugly heads and assume precedence with phrases such as, 'first and foremost we must ask if this is economically viable', on a business scale, and the more humble - and arguably more viable - cry of actual people that, 'we can't afford this'. But it is futile to attempt an argument which this beginning implies - viz. doing away with money - because that solution is not a readily foreseeable development in the world; and it is hardly helpful to talk in such hypothetical terms as 'it'll be alright when everyone lives without money and we can live as ecologically sound lives as possible' because we need a solution now, in this world, with our ever-evolving technology and despite our ever-constraining world economy.
The first assumption is that climate change is happening, and that it is a dire problem. As such, it is logical to suggest that, if possible, solutions must be devised to, if not reverse it, then slow it down or stop it. This possibility is the second assumption - either that it is or that it isn't possible - with me holding the view that it is possible to devise solutions for at least slowing down climate change. Let me not speak in hypothetical terms as to how whole businesses and countries may be able to alleviate climate change, because it isn't whole businesses or countries which will be reading this, but real people not too dissimilar to you.
Simple things such as turning off electrical gear when it isn't being used - lights, computers, TVs (which some absent people presume to use as thief-deterrence devices) - maintaining a compost heap (which, as well as providing the benefits of fertiliser for growing ones own food, saves on the weight that the waste would otherwise add to the dustbin lorries' cargo), and travelling with fuel efficient forms of transport. Many of these things would also be economically viable, since using less electricity leads to lower electricity bills, maintaining a compost heap and growing ones own food can lower food bills, and travelling with fuel efficient forms of transport may lead to lower fuel bills or lower total cost of travelling per year depending on the form of transport. However, some people may be sufficiently wealthy not to be affected by such economic concerns, and some (possibly similar) people may be unwilling to suffer the least inconvenience to them so that the greater population (potentially the entirety of life on Earth) will benefit.
We can try to reason with these people, help them change their ways, but we know that although you can give a hyena a guitar you can't make it play. The best thing we can do in honour of Blog Action Day is to forget about this "economic viability", and replace it with the concern to be "ecologically sound". From now and for the future, the first phrase to come to mind will be, 'first and foremost we must ask if this is ecologically sound'.
