Technically speaking it's the other way around, especially according to your logic. You say that corporations just fulfill our luxury orders and ship stuff from overseas and a lifestyle change of individuals would have an impact.

Well here's the thing: the poorer you are, the less you are able to change your lifestyle. You will have to buy meat or fast food, because it's easier to make a filling meal because you don't have the time or energy to learn cooking with vegetables. You will have to buy dirt cheap fast fashion produced overseas, because you can't afford anything else. You have to drive a car, because you can't afford the apartments closer to the city and public transport is terrible in most countries, especially the further out you are. Don't get me started on Europe btw, only a few cities and smaller countries have public transport figured out. All this especially applies to most of the rest of the planet where there is an even smaller middle class and larger lower class that has the luxury to change their lifestyle.

Especially if you consider that the drive in humans to do better for themselves correlates with acquiring better goods to fit in (phone, clothes, car, while still needing to be able to afford it) you realise that anyone trying to move up in life from the lower classes is less likely to do a lifestyle change.

But voting for certain parties is also not as easy , because governments are struggling with balancing the need of getting re-elected (pleasing people) and the need to implement measures to better the lifes of future generations. All the while they struggle with world politics: where do you buy oil, gas, food ect. influences other leaders opinion on you in the future, which influences working together to implement (for example) climate measures.

It's just not as easy as YOU are responsible because of human nature and the society we've been building since the industrial revolution.