As an aside, they should revert to calling it Global Warming. That's what it actually is. They cited science, selectively, to Orwellian alter the term (as Shell-Shock to Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder, or Murder Indiscriminate to Collateral Damage). They say, well, "some parts are warming and others are cooling". Right, but the overall effect is the world is burning, its icecaps are melting, and the planet is becoming "warmer". Hotter. Which place is destined to become frozen over the next twenty years or cooler than it was with an immense degree of difference? Not one. It's all going in the "warming" direction just unevenly. This idea of "well the climate is changing and we have to adapt to it" is less alarming than the truthful description of "we're cutting the lungs of the world down, sending billions of years of fossil fuels up, with no carbon sinkage to then accommodate that thus feedback-loop, so called, or Greenhouse Gas effect, being precisely that: the global warming caused by human economy".
That's us "changing" the climate on the right. Anthropogenic alteration, or cumulative effect of human economic practice, dubbed carbon/whatever output, over centuries (two), equalling global warming.
Now, you could do something like carbon capture on site. You could, in theory, take those (if not all) energy producing (dirty) factories and flatten the means by which the fumes relase into the atmosphere in the first instance. Horizontal, inductive, chimney (exhaust) premise which thus deposits into the sediment and reduces, if not eliminates, all that which just flows into the atmosphere 24/7 = 25% of all global emissions. That requires retrofitting already existing power stations over a decade or so and minimal lifestyle changes. You would still use oil, for a time, and it would never get into the atmosphere. The nuclear principle, basically, but the storage of methane/carbon/whatever within the sediment, very far down (from whence the stuff is sourced) is less hazardous than refined nuclear waste which is likewise stored.
Think of a chimney. Now flatten it. The flow of the combustion engine, just call it a furnace, is inducted (basic science, but with advanced techniques) in such a way that it goes against the "rising" principle (hot air risies). Now, put a small, but highly strong alloy-compound turbine within that chimney, grounded, and the toxic fume material, when it reaches critical mass, thus turns, by force-value (heat/volume/pressure), spins, a turbine which, itself, can be isolated from the carbon capture, primary, and fed back into the factory's own power grid. It might only = 5% or 2% or whatever % of "freely given electrical power", but it works. Carbon capture post atmposheric release: that is stupid. It's trying to catch something after it is feasible to catch it en masse. Either you cease all such usage of such fuels, or you get people together and figure out a way to make it work (via such premises as this wherein the technology arlready fecking exists).
Will that work for all factories? No, but it will absolutely work for many. Rare mentions of the premise. Now, until people start thinking that way, industrialists, mostly, we're basically fecked. If you can do this and simultaneous desert schemes, algae/oases/species barrier restoration, over the next ten years, as but one stone toward the overall solution, there is indeed a solution. But it is that macro. Recycling isn't going to cut it. Though cleaning the oceans up is something that is worthwhile and ought to be funded by the billions not the millions.
Keep saying it: QE and taxbreaks = >10tn easily over ten years. Offshore accounts, not to scapegoat, have 100tn, estimated, in seclusion. World's GDP is 100tn per year. War Spending is 2tn per year. I see no Defense Economic initiative to pivot, entirely, over a ten year period into the new economic mode (the necessary one). Whatever one's solution is.
What I do see is news/politics/etc., trying to manage people's expectations as the corporations still profit to the tune of trillions, every year, by the very means which = right side of that picture. And a future's market for crude oil wherein the price, bidding, now, is higher in 2034 than it is/was in 2006/2010 and other periods, barring covid, with inflation (insofar as you can) taken into account. That to me tells me all I need to know about how seriously private and public sectors are taking the entire thing.
