Realistically since what I proposed above is non-viable? Increase the cost of producing fossil fuels through more direct means, of which discussion is banned on most of the public internet.
Realistically since what I proposed above is non-viable? Increase the cost of producing fossil fuels through more direct means, of which discussion is banned on most of the public internet.
Nuclear does have a hope in changing this dynamic. But even then, fossil fuels have powerful advantages that won't be easily overcome any time in the next 10-15 years, at least.
The goal is to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere by whatever means work.
By the time it actually happens though it will be too late for a lotta people.
But the parent asked what we _should_ do.
Ya know, it's never the people calling for a war that end up putting it all on the line to actually fight said war.
You don't have to tax beef explicitly when you tax carbon because beef is carbon intensive and so the tax is implicit.
The problem is that carbon pricing is a political 3rd rail and also has no moat, so it's trivially easy for the a conservative government to pander and throw it out.