Every human problem is in essence a problem of energy abundance. We need to embrace all technologies that let us unlock more energy wielded per capita, preferably without harmful side-effects like pollution, but where there exist side-effects they must be weighed against the benefit, instead of being categorically banned.

The latter, without an alternative source of energy, just means people will be worse off. Greenlash is already a thing in many developed countries that have tried to set unrealistic policy goals. In my opinion, the focus on net-zero should really be a focus on a clean, abundant, and cheap energy source -- like fusion, if it can be realized. Instead, it seems like the current focus of net-zero is on how to divide the energy we can currently produce and in what way.

It is immoral to ask or force the global poor living in yet-to-be-developed countries to not raze their forests for agriculture or other use, when it is the same path that every developed nation has already trod; and besides, they aren't going to listen either way, when their own livelihoods are at stake. The way out of the problem is through: through more energy.