What can we do?
Realistically since what I proposed above is non-viable? Increase the cost of producing fossil fuels through more direct means, of which discussion is banned on most of the public internet.
Nuclear does have a hope in changing this dynamic. But even then, fossil fuels have powerful advantages that won't be easily overcome any time in the next 10-15 years, at least.
By the time it actually happens though it will be too late for a lotta people.
But the parent asked what we _should_ do.
Ya know, it's never the people calling for a war that end up putting it all on the line to actually fight said war.
The goal is to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere by whatever means work.
You don't have to tax beef explicitly when you tax carbon because beef is carbon intensive and so the tax is implicit.
The problem is that carbon pricing is a political 3rd rail and also has no moat, so it's trivially easy for the a conservative government to pander and throw it out.
The only solution would be for humanity to collectively agree to make fossil fuels incredibly expensive GLOBALLY...in some way or another. Whether that's through collective action or something else, I guess time will tell.
On most days, I think we are screwed.
It is simple-minded to think that a single technological breakthrough will suddenly make the problem of climate change go away.
I agree that a single technological breakthrough is unlikely to solve climate change. It will require many. I am simply pointing out that it is incorrect to say that the only solution is a global cartel to make fossil fuels much more expensive.
When did we become such losers?
That's fine - I'm sure we'll get them one way or another
Oil is much, much more valuable in the long term as a material commodity, not a fuel commodity. This can be realized if we bring down the price of power, which is happening, albeit in only part of the globe.
And do it all 20 years ago. Like everyone was saying at the time.
I’d say I’m disappointed and disgusted at humanity’s collective failure to act in the face of clear evidence. But I had massively low expectations.
The first thing that I thought of when reading the headline was “more cowbell.” [0]
But in reality the answer is “less cowbell” as bovine emissions are a significant greenhouse gas [1] and cattle ranching in Brasil is linked to deforestation. [2]
0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Cowbell
1. https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-more-sustain...
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/interactive/2022/amazon...
Edit: added supporting links
This was a policy choice and can be reversed.
Become more self-sufficient with more spread out plots of land to reduce shipping.
Explore and expand reusable containers.
Meatless Monday.
Design more efficient water-based appliances like sinks and showers.
Keep moving fwd w EVs.
At its worst its propoganda to convince people its ok to keep buying things and living as they currently do as the rich abscond with the profits.
If I were you I would be extremely suspicious of media that promotes these kind of tepid measures as effective.