I cannot comprehend the idea of anyone who says, in a debate, "I cannot be bothered reading all of that" as a means of debating. It's absurd. "I have likely been shown to be entirely incorrect, so I'll just ignore all evidence which proves it and pretend that I can't be bothered reading it as a means of publicly shrugging it off". Not aimed personallly, btw, but something I read a lot of across various CE threads. The debate goes on anyway, so why not read it? Never do understand that mode of response.
Climate change requires global action. Desert irrigation type schemes from negative pressure oceanic dams. That is the sort of action, in tandem with carbon emission, which will solve the problem and produce a general economic positive in the process via immense employment opportunity. Irrigating deserts, with algae, for example, and I mean only X% of say three deserts, the North America, the Saharan/Fertile Cresent, and the Australasian, as spiralled oases (again, tiny fractions of these vast lands), will do many things. One, water treatment direct from oceanic source. Two, power generation if we go deep underground at staggered rate and apply an immense turbine in density but small in size, (think Hoover, but exponential and much smaller though much more powerful), three, terraformation practice leading directly to superstructural endeavours going into the next few decades wherein the moon (by century's end, and probably mid, if the world has survived) becomes next stop along the human progression trend, four, migration/immigration in terms of centripetal ordering of states from Central/Mexican/Southern United States, into African, Middle Eastern, and then, contractually, Supply/Demand, into the Australasian.
Basic premise is simple: Amazonian/North American square miles of certain plants (Congo for Saharan; various forests and so on for the Fertile Cresent and Papua New Guinea for Austalasian); then zoning for agricultural resettlement, to maintain the species barrier and solve that, immunological/species extinction problem; then, as we go on, massive water treatment all across North America (runs dry in the summer as it is, water disputes between states and nations), also Africa, where the Nile and dams along that river are subject to warring tribal conflicts as its level is less predictable; into the Fertile Cresent wherein Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iran, Yemen, et al, all have an interest in pursuing said project within their own national imaginaries (and then X amount of Australasia).
This is an exponential breaker which is required, along with cleaning up the oceans and rivers - at the same time with vast trawling apparati, already in place, just micro. Reduced carbon output, by itself, will not work. Species barrier is more likely to kill off the planet than melting Glazers. A few waves of viruses at once usually contained within species, now going extinct, exponentially, - that is more doomsday than climate change viewed solely as rapid heating. It's an all or nothing approach. I see this decade (multi decade) thinking nowhere and that will be the death of all orders unless they get it together. It doesn't cost a cent but actually perpetuates the economy to come. There is no economy to come unless you can get along with this. I have done this point by point elsehwere (not publicly) and it works for all states implied, albeit at different levels of land.
America: from "border" as left/right issue, to economic issue. A solution rather than problem. The Mexican side, which is the hammer/anvil of the desert as they move into USA proper, will develop its own gold-rush towns. That is how you solve that problem forever. There is no other solution. It is a climate issue economically and socially misunderstood. Anyway, I await the so-called "ruling class" (useful idiots) of the world to do precisely nothing about it even as they benefit from it.
