In any commons system there is, first of all, a resource that is commonly shared (the pasture). For the system to be subject to the tragedy [of the commons], the resource must not only be limited, but erodable when overused. That is, beyond some threshold, the less resource there is, the less it is able to regenerate itself, or the more likely it is to be destroyed. (..). Another reinforcing feedback loop running downhill.
A commons system also needs users of the resource (the cows and their owners), which have good reason to increase, and which increase at a rate that is not influenced by the condition of the commons. The individual herdsman has no reason, no incentive, no strong feedback, to let the possibility of overgrazing stop him from adding another cow to the common pasture. To the contrary, he or she has everything to gain.
— Thinking in Systems by Donella H. Meadows, Diana Wright (Page 117)
The climate crisis is a systems failure, in particular, a failure of information flow.
Nature just absorbs too much damage (more or less) invisibly for too long. Which means we have to make this damage visible in the form of an immediate, strong feedback.
The personal carbon footprint is a strategy invented by Big Oil to distract from the fact that they produce more carbon than we ever will; it creates a sense of individual responsibility to avoid corporate responsibility.
Yes, that's bad. But I'm not sure that is all bad. We've been separating rubbish for recycling in Germany for a decade or more before the carbon footprint term was coined. But in places where that wasn't happening, it's also the buzzword we use to remind each other that damage occurs even when no feedback is given.
I don't think this is a sufficient substitute for finding such forms of feedback, and it certainly doesn't absolve the oil companies. It's just an observation that feedback can also be societal pressure. "Stop buying that shit, you're killing us all" works, too.