You appear to have a problem with capitalism, consumerism, and carbon emissions, as if they were all one inseparable package. Which is intellectually nonsense. The worlds largest pollutor is communist China. There is no system of economics that is either more or less friendly to the environment. All systems of economics revolve around production and consumption.
Aside from all the FUD and illogical nonsense that people like you spread, the core problem you have is extremism. You can’t accept a workable solution, because anything less than your view of a perfect solution is impossible in your eyes. It doesn’t matter how viable nuclear and hydro could be, and how beneficial they could be overall, because they are less than perfect, they are unacceptable.
Yes, I do have a problem with capitalism and consumerism, because they are at the root of our increasing mistreatment of the world we live in.
The entire focus on economics as the only way to run the world is crazy. Money and economics are nothing but abstract concepts invented by humans, they're not some sort of natural universal truth.
We cannot consume nor bargain ourselves out of this problem, the solution will not be market-based. We need an entirely different paradigm, to use a hackneyed term. One that revolves around cooperation, rather than competition.
China has been "communist" in name only for decades, and you will note that their emissions increased sharply when they started adopted western capitalist ideas and let the market economy take over. Partylr because we started exporting our dirtiest industries to them.
Have you read the IPCC report? You really should, it's a rather sobering read. It gives us 12 years to reverse our doomed course. 12 years.
And then consider that the IPCC is even considered optimistic by some environmentalists, ostensibly written that way to not rock the boat too much and cause panic.
I am not joking. It is that serious. So we can either act and try to change the world, or we can go about our business as usual and cause our own extinction.
In other words, the planet isn't dying, it's being killed.
But please, explain which solution you think could solve or at least halt the problem within 12 years?
I think you should save this little exchange, and revisit it in 10 or 20 years, and consider what we could have done, but didn't do, because it was "too extreme".
Aside from all the FUD and illogical nonsense that people like you spread, the core problem you have is extremism. You can’t accept a workable solution, because anything less than your view of a perfect solution is impossible in your eyes. It doesn’t matter how viable nuclear and hydro could be, and how beneficial they could be overall, because they are less than perfect, they are unacceptable.