No, we need to stop using oil and gas and such.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/indias-solar-boo...
It's quite the opposite situation than the US, where coal is extremely high-quality and private player participation is unrestricted.
I'm not holding my breath. I'm happy they saw a slight reduction in oil and gas use, though.
They are technically also paying the rich (and crucially the companies that supply things for both the rich and poor) to not use oil and gas too.
The entire point is that the global climate is a complex system and changing things may have unintended consequences.
Proved by reality, that's why they propose to reduce or even undo human emissions.
It's just shifting, what types and where, energy is generated.
And those shifts, have tradeoffs.
Want cleaner air in developed urban areas via EVs? ok cool, but the tradeoff is more mines elsewhere to supply those minerals, more batteries and metals for charging infrastructure.
There is no free lunch in the energy world, solar and wind have tradeoffs.
https://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/VW-and-H...
( Carbon Dioxide Absorbs and Re-emits Infrared Radiation - https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/carbo... )
You want science, testable and repeatable science?
Start with, say, Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity (1967)
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atsc/24/3/1520-04...
described as "the most influential studies of all time" ( https://www.carbonbrief.org/prof-john-mitchell-how-a-1967-st... )
There are others: https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-most-influential-climate-cha...
The real world physics of doubling a low CO2 concentration in representative air samples has been performed many a time .. it works as the cited paper says .. trapping more of heat energy radiated upwards by the land and sea that would otherwise diffuse outwards.
People calculated precisely what exactly happens when you double CO2... And the effect it's logarithmic...
Maybe read the paper and those that followed, especially about the follow on increases in water vapor and methane and where trapped heat energy goes once there's little to no ice left to melt and act as a sink.
The people you are quoting are a known fossil fuel disinformation crew providing a pension plan to fossils like Clauser who have zero peer review papers in any part of the climate or geophysics field despite some sound work in unrelated fields contemporous with 1967.
Original paper (on arvix, not accepted by any mainstream journal so far): https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
C.A. de Lange loves it, claims it as game changing etc: https://co2coalition.org/publications/van-wijngaarden-and-ha...
There are a number of discussions re: the original paper and why it was not accepted, eg:
What is technically wrong with Wijngaarden & Happer's paper claiming to show that CO2's contribution to surface warming is saturated? - https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/25227/what-...
The thing about Venus is also something you'll find if you look for serious papers trying to criticise the paper. Nitpicking about the word logarithmic seems to be the only things that serious critics have found. The other main argument seems to be name calling and Cancel Culture... and that's all what critics so far have produced...
Claiming that things are unaccepted is also some kind of rumour. There are more papers, and if you read them you'll notice that they're of very high quality. Just compare the quality with that of papers of critics...
To me the most compelling argument for Wijngaarden is the incredible low quality of all the writings from people from climate-institutes that tried to find something against him. OMG...