The true problem is consumerism and planned obsolescence. Phones should last 10 years. They should have standard components like a PC. There should be one kernel that runs on all of them, like a PC. Old laptops should be re-purposed. We need to actually be able to recycle a Pentium 3 instead of shipping all our e-waste to Africa and China where kids pick through them for inefficient amounts of metals.

We need to stop consuming as much stuff. We need to pay higher prices for components that last longer, have a more complete recycling cycle and companies should actually be praised for not meeting sales targets if it means their old stock is simply lasting longer and no longer needs replacement. You shouldn't buy a new laptop if the old one is "two years old and running slow."

I'm not saying CO2 isn't a problem, but the sole focus on it is saddening because it's not the problem itself. It's a symptom of an extremely consumerist society. You cannot replace every gas vehicle with an electric one over the next 20 years. We simply don't have the resources. There are 4 barrels of oil that go into ever set of tiers, not to mention all the plastic and trim. We are getting more wind turbines and solar to better power those cars, yes .. cars that will simply never be built.

We need to reduce cars, have better train systems in every city, live smaller, consume less and make things last. No amount of CO2 emission reduction will solve the actual problem of increasing mass consumption, not until our population starts to curb.

Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see any real changed in the developed world until the next bubble bursts or the next major collapse.

This is true. In the UK Gordon Brown was so obsessed with CO2 he enacted policies that actually increased particulate pollution from Diesel engines.

Because the economic consequences of fossil fuel regulation could be massively deadly or at least disruptive as well, that is why people and companies spend millions of dollars lying about it.

The balance of power of nations and corporations would be totally upended.

We could have gotten here sooner if we had invested more heavily, sooner in these technologies. As it is we had a few forward thinking states like Germany to thank for where we are, with spot prices of wind and most solar being cheaper than coal, and often cheaper than natural gas.

This totally upends the few existing players that were once thought to have unassailable power. But now that companies that are heavily invested in natural gas are treating coal as their competitor and enemy in the political landscape, things are changing. Those natural gas heavy fossil fuel companies are actually asking for a carbon tax!

As solar and wind become bigger economic forces, we will likely start to see more consolidation and see fewer player with stronger political force to compete with natural gas. The nuclear industry has no power here, they let fossil fuel driven companies control their fate, and they have no industrial savvy to build an industry, and instead spend all their time tilting at windmills of weak political forces, and unable to build and deliver reactors when they do have eager customers.

It will be super interesting to see what happens with Perry’s coal NOPR that’s being evaluated by FERC right now. Has FERC been stacked with enough coal partisans, or will the rest of the energy industry win out?

[0] https://www.thenational.ae/business/energy/world-s-cheapest-...

And as you said, stopping the fossil fuel use worldwide would upend our entire modern civilization, result in massive food shortages and an economic crisis, and likely significant conflicts as well. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Most of these "skeptics" (accepting a very loose meaning of the word) are in the US, and given the US's massive geographical resources, of desert, planes and coastline, and its expertise in technology development, I can't see why it as a nation would object, in terms of a zero sum transfer of power between nations. The really dramatic shift would be away from the Middle East, in particular Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran, and I struggle to see why the US should do anything except cheer that.

There is no question that global warming is happening [1]. Even denialists will concede this. They only question the severity of the problem and whether it's man-made or natural.

High temperature records are broken nearly every year nowadays. The last time we had a record low temperature was 100 years ago (though I can't find the reference at the moment).

[1] http://www.climatesignals.org/data/record-high-temps-vs-reco...

But a reluctance to admit that you're wrong is a big part of human politics. Maybe we can find some way to reframe the issue so that it doesn't seem like a retreat to them?