I encourage everyone to check out Citizens Climate Lobby. Help us lobby for a carbon fee plus dividend.

https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/

> Eventually, the solution will have to come from the government.

I see your argument, but not sure if I agree with this part.

If we/entrepreneur/engineers can figure 2 things: 1. Figure the engineering problem which would be something along the lines of: a. consume CO2 from air and use product something else b. bring alternative sources of energy at part with fossil fuels c. etc. 2. Figure a way to provide it as a service so that people can pay for it.

We can fix it. Still doable without hoping for governments to come and bail us.

This could have been a valid argument 30 years ago. We simply don't have time for "Figure the engineering problem" any more. We are at the point where we need firefighters, not fire safety consultants.

> We simply don't have time for "Figure the engineering problem" any more.

Honest question, how do you prove this?

Here are my arguments against the motion:

1. 30 years ago we did not have internet. Now most of us have access to vast amount of technical data

2. 30 years ago stakes were not high enough. Now next generation is about to see very high impact.

3. 30 years ago most of the tech that we have now were still in research (ML, cheap computers, availability of funds etc)

Now let's assume you are right, we are out of time. Then following is my argument: Attempting to fix our ecosystem is worthy goal nonetheless and instead of expecting "them" or "government" or "billionaires" to bail us out, I'd rather have us take the responsibility. In worst case, it'll be a adventure and will be worth it.

Hm, I don't think we are actually in much of a disagreement. Maybe you are misreading my comment. When I say "Eventually, the solution will have to come from the government" I don't mean that we should just sit around and wait for the government to "bail us out". Of course we should all do what we can. And of course we should invest in R&D and develop new technologies.

But I don't have any illusion that 100% of people will suddenly (voluntarily) stop flying or consuming unnecessary crap. Or that "free market" will somehow solve the problem all by itself. We need a WW2 level of economic and political mobilisation. But that won't happen by itself. We need to make it happen. And the best way to do it at this stage I believe is radical activism (e.g. https://xrebellion.org). And we know from history that it works. Think about civil rights movement etc.

I guess I misread your comment. I agree that most of the people will not change their habits and we need to engage our governments too.

So what are you suggesting, just randomly shutting down things that cause emissions?

I don't think you can reduce emissions without either impacting people's lives (jobs, lifestyle) or improving efficiency. And unless you do it very carefully, anything that impacts people's lives has a good chance of getting someone into office who promises to undo all those changes and then some.

randomly shutting down things? were did you get that from? what did I say that would imply this?