I’m having trouble understanding why people are so opposed to using fossil fuel "as cleanly and efficiently as possible." It’ll take many decades until renewable and other carbon-neutral energy sources can fully phase out coal and natural gas so doesn’t it make sense to invest in both technologies until then? If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions as much and as fast as possible it seems that we could make greater contributions by tackling both

Because clean and efficient fossil fuel is code for removing investment in renewable technologies, and billions of dollars invested show significantly less return than the gains in renewable energy sources.

I don’t buy that this is an either/or situation. One example that comes to mind is the improvements in the efficiency of gasoline powered vehicles while electric vehicle production is ramping up. I think we’re better off that there was a huge push for making ICEs more efficient when electric vehicles were still in its infancy (I can’t prove this but I don’t think throwing more money at Tesla or other companies could have significantly sped up their timeline)

But that's not what the US delegation is doing: they're promoting coal power solutions

Coal is probably the worst. They should promote the AP1000 rather than coal.

>One example that comes to mind is the improvements in the efficiency of gasoline powered vehicles while electric vehicle production is ramping up.

But the Trump administration is reducing the fuel economy standards, not increasing them. Were you really not aware of that?

Renewables arent going to solve our increasing demand for energy and thus not really more important than to make oil cleaner and nuclear more popular. Renewables er themselves not as clean and certainly not as scaleable as nuclear.

Our demand for energy is NOT increasing, at least not in the US. Demand has flatlined since 2007 and more efficient appliances, bulbs, etc are to blame. I have TVA and they have been egregiously self-sabotaging their own solar program in all sorts of ways because the dang sun is a threat to their monopoly and would cut into their revenues. And renewables are so much cheaper, TVA has shifted $1.4 billion of their operating costs from large industrial to residential customers to further disincentivize their switch.

Honestly it's outrageous.

The world is bigger than the US so yes it is.

It's nonsense. Coal is more expensive to use than current renewable solutions, so no-one is building new coal plants. It's pandering to US political interests at the cost of preventing global cooperation on climate change. It's venal behaviour of the lowest order

To a third world country without subsidies? Hardly.

The World Bank just promised $200 billion to help them out?

Yeah how do you think that's is going to be spent?

Climate change is a global problem but will never be solved by politicians as politics is never the solution to wicked problems. Solutions can only be established sustainably through decentralized technological progress. Solutions that are based on the political climate are never the way to go. As priorities can change rapidly. There are no experts in what last chance means. This is a political claim not a scientific on.

CFCs destroying the ozone layer was a global problem solved by politicians

"solved" is an overstatement, especially given recent discoveries of increasing CFC manufacture in China.

CFCs wasnt a wicked problem. There were alternatives for the market and it had no cost to the consumer or society.

Getting rid of CFCs is orders of magnitude less painful than fossil fuels, concrete, and habitat destruction.

Remember, Trump believes that anthropogenic global climate change is a hoax.