I am at the point where it is something that comes out of Y Combinator or defense companies that solve the problems of climate change. Either tech solves the problem or we fight over what is left.
Climate change policy will always incur asymmetrical costs, and the people who it effects wouldn't willingly enact them, and others would rarely share that burden in a meaningful way. Outside of innovation, any other policy will most likely incur economic cost which politicians are hesitant to do, especially now with how stretched lower classes are.
I think the only way out is to make non hydrocarbon based energy production cheaper and as dependable as hydrocarbons.
We have plenty of technological solutions already, and look at the mess we have. Sure, none of them is perfect, but none ever will be, either.
Mostly standard fights over unions and subsidies.
And not only that, the solution to the problem is already known. Have fewer babies and reduce the population over time, travel less, produce goods closer to where they are needed, eat more produce and less meat, and increase prices for goods and services that require more energy and produce more carbon emissions.
Those are not technical solutions, they're political and economic.
The maximum climate effect from reducing having babies would mean no children for, say, the next 20 years. What does that do to reduce emissions to negative by 2050? Nothing! The very best it could possibly do is reduce emissions a tiny bit. It does not solve the problem, and it handicaps the workforce right when we need more people producing the tech to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, in all the multitude of ways we need reconfigure our economy to be carbon negative.
Tech is the only only only way out, unless you advocating for the premature deaths of billions and a return to nomadic lifestyles. Suggesting having fewer babies as a solution is just completely unserious.
The other major fallacy is that more goods and services requires more carbon emissions. That's just BS. In general, goods require a lot more carbon at the moment, but that's absolutely not a requirement, it's only because we are pulling geological carbon out of the ground and dumping it into the atmosphere to capture stored energy. We have newer, better tech to capture energy from the sun and wind and store it, that does not require any emissions.
Meat, similarly, is a red herring for those of us in the US. It's nothing compared to out driving, nothing at all. But brining up meat sure does rile up people to think that they aren't willing to make any changes.
We have the tech, and I agree that the problems are political for their deployment, but solar wind and storage will be far more economically efficient when deployed.
There are no technological possibilities that are predicated on sustained increases in human economic activity and energy usage. At best they slow the pace of climate change and at worse are fools errands.