It might be able to but that would require getting rid of cheap sources of energy and manufacturing which the deck is stacked so hard against it will never happen. Before humanity will do anything we have to get rid of the current ruling autocracy since acting now would create pain over time, acting later would create pain when most people alive are dead. And maybe put the environment before profits, same problem though.

The problem is that the technology is already ninety percent there, but replacing energy infrastructure costs money. The time of waiting for technology is long over, we know what we need to build, we just have to do it.

There are also a lot of peoples who’s wealth comes from continuing the way things are, and changing over to greener technologies would mean they might end up less wealthy

> The alternative option which is consuming less in order to pollute less is pretty unpopular.

If you frame the problem like that, does it actually surprise you that no one will act on it? One has to either freeze or feel guilty of some kind of moral failing about the heat one consumes?

You might say: No, no, the problem is not consumption, it's the superfluous part of the consumption, the overconsumption that's the problem. Okay, but, then, who exactly stands in judgment of which part of the consumption is the overconsumption? The same moralising types who bemoan the melting of the glaciers?

Reminds me a bit of pre-enlightenment Europe and its juxtaposition of power and catholic moralising guilttripping. What's needed is a humanistic way forward, a way wherein man gets to fundamentally be the hero of the story.

If you come to me and say: Here is a way to reconfigure the economy through technological, economic, and political change, to make it so that one can feel good about consumption again, then I will go to hell and back to make that change happen. If you just tell me "consume less", then don't expect me to do anything.

Ok, understood. I'm now telling you: "Here is a way to reconfigure the economy through technological, economic, and political change, to make it so that one can feel good about consumption again, then I will go to hell and back to make that change happen".

Just don't spend too much time in hell, we need you to act here :-)

Hum... I noticed you aren't telling the actual way.

Name checks out

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I would presume:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement

Correct

...and, now I'd like to hear the part of the argument that's not ad-hominem, not a non-sequitur, and not strawmanning my supposed position.

I mean at this point we’re likely looking at the dreaded 2C scenario even if we ceased all carbon emissions and regressed back to the stone age immediately, which obviously isn’t going to happen because I really like my hot showers.

We’ve been using technology to solve our problems for thousands of years. If that streak stops now, we’re royally fucked.

Seriously, given the way that globally we keep exceeding worst-case predictions... no, we are not looking at 2ºC.

Very seriously, without hyperbole, without exaggeration, we are looking at twice that by the end of the century.

Forget 2º. Think 4º in the lifetime of children alive today.

Next century, we are looking at 6-7º C or more. Possibly as soon as early 22nd century, maybe sooner. We are currently heading for 10ºC increase.

https://medium.com/@samyoureyes/the-busy-workers-handbook-to...

I can't tell you in ºF. I am 57 years old and they stopped teaching that in schools before I was in primary schools where I have lived all my life (Europe and Africa).