> The USA will likely address climate change directly through technology (geoengineering) vs rapid degrowth (the only two plausible means of stabilizing the climate)
How is "rapid degrowth" a solution to climate change? we have "degrowth" in population in basically every industrialized country already anyway, but more extreme rates like South Korea are already destabilizingly low, and still not even close to enough for keeping CO2 emissions in check: That would probably require us to slash population by at least 60% (and quickly, even if we kept enacting CO2 reducing measures).
There is already a "solution" for climate change on the table-- electrify everything, de-carbonize electricity generation and help roll out this change globally, but all the major players are dragging their feet because this is obviously not free...
How is "rapid degrowth" a solution to climate change? we have "degrowth" in population in basically every industrialized country already anyway, but more extreme rates like South Korea are already destabilizingly low, and still not even close to enough for keeping CO2 emissions in check: That would probably require us to slash population by at least 60% (and quickly, even if we kept enacting CO2 reducing measures).
There is already a "solution" for climate change on the table-- electrify everything, de-carbonize electricity generation and help roll out this change globally, but all the major players are dragging their feet because this is obviously not free...