[1] https://www.verdict.co.uk/climate-tech-investing-dominates-v...
[2] https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/esg/state-of-climate-tech-2...
[1] https://www.verdict.co.uk/climate-tech-investing-dominates-v...
[2] https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/issues/esg/state-of-climate-tech-2...
You want to know what would actually look like addressing the problem? Paying poor countries to not build coal plants. Blowing up infrastructure. Etc. Reduction of emissions is the only thing that matters at this point.
So that they can be replaced with cleaner power or just to bribe people into staying poor?
> Blowing up infrastructure.
So that people starve to death?
This is a straightforward wealth-transfer. It is up to the recipient to decide how they want to use it, but it should be noted this is attached to a statement to not build coal plants. Given the obvious correlation between energy production and economic productivity this should work out ok as well as delivering a long-overdue balancing of power among economically disparate peoples. The last effect is why I know this will not happen until it is too late (probably already).
> So that people starve to death?
That's coming regardless. Nonetheless, strategic targeting should avoid this.
There's always the wealth-transfer option if you object to the ethics of property destruction!
The other options are even more homicidal/genocidal/apocalyptic for our civilization—you just aren't obligated to think about it today.