Fantasizing that we can eliminate and reverse fossil fuel emissions without dramatically affecting global standard of living (acutely in less developed societies) is also a non-solution. We are going to have to deal with slowing but non-zero emissions for a long time, which essentially implies we will need to "deal with the symptom" as a primary remediation action.
> dramatically affecting global standard of living
What's wrong with that ? That's the issue many have and fortunately, you tell it like it is. People don't want to change.
Public transportation, changing the "dream of traveling" into another one, having electronic that lasts for 10 years instead of 5, better insulation, and the list goes on. Yes, one can change the global standard of living into other not lesser global standard.
Or you think it's already too late and then, well, it's effectively too late.
You can’t expect a majority to understand, much less accept, the probabilistic systems thinking required to conclude (and act on) dedevelopment.
Ambitious (and probably also clueless/disbelieving) ideologues will spin junk food narratives that move the masses.
And you will have war everywhere.
So it makes sense to roll the dice on remediation and hope slow social change takes. The only alternative is a horrible age for humanity, one way or another.
Economic forces are not slow. Renewables are radically cheaper than any other energy source. Getting out of the way of such change is all we need for it to happen very, very fast.
Distracting people with things that will not end up working brings catastrophe nearer.
Renewables come with major constraints that fossil fuel sources do not share. The value of the grid is rooted in its consistent availability. Renewables cannot replace on-demand generation because they are definitionally cyclic, constrained by availability of sun, wind and water [1]. Large scale energy storage is required to replicate the energy security offered by fossil fuel generation, which is not feasible with current tech at the required scale, and regardless the storage costs eliminate the argument of renewables as "radically cheaper".
[1] Geothermal is an exception. Gas is also technically a constrained resource, but not on a timescale relevant to this century.
You neglect the multiplicity of storage alternatives, all of which work, at different price points. The most cost-effective will be the ones used. Idiotic ones (e.g. Energy Vault's) won't be.
Of course very little storage is built yet, because it would be beyond stupid to build storage that there is not renewable capacity, yet, to charge up. Money is overwhelmingly better spent on generation capacity, first. Storage cost is falling faster than solar. When we build it, it will be very cheap.
Energy security is mainly what I was referring to. Inconsistent access and/or prohibitively expensive electricity and gas is a huge problem for personal health, healthcare, education and access to economic opportunities.
ACs can be coupled with solar power, with only a very small battery (reducing CO2 a lot). Or, as has become common in some European countries, an electric air heat pump could both heat and cool housing. With the additional benefit that you get hot water as a side product in cooling mode.
Well, if we could wave a magic wand then it is obviously better to stop climate change even if it means reducing the global standard of living simply because out-of-control climate change will harm living standards much more. But we can’t and developing nations are likely to go full steam ahead, like we did back in the day.
How is it not? Our civilization is burning through its resources at an unsustainable pace, in several major ways, and the obvious projection is overshoot and collapse.
Many people have faith that as-yet-unknown technological innovations will save us. Other people have faith that Jesus will return from heaven and save them. Faith sure must be comforting!
Given the knowledge we actually have, and the tools which are actually available, there appears to be a choice between working our way down to a lower standard of living now, gradually, as we transition to renewable energy, or dealing with an abrupt shock later, coping with the sudden chaotic arrival at a lower standard of living involuntarily, after the wheels have come off the fossil-fuel party all at once.
Cheap energy, fresh water, arable land/fertile topsoil, a functioning marine food web, functioning boreal ecosystems, pollinators, climate stable enough for consistent agriculture and reliable shipping. The more energy we use, the more CO2 we emit; the more we destabilize the climatic & ecological systems we depend on, the riskier a predicament we place ourselves in.
Given the ~40 years it will take to reach net-zero CO2 emissions, we will certainly miss a good number of climatic tipping points, and the environmental changes which result will add even more pressure to our existing risks. It is only sensible to buy ourselves as much time as possible by reducing energy demand. How do we do that? Well... that was my original remark.
