That can and must happen in parallel with replacement of coal with cleaner sources of energy, even if they involve emissions.

Full decarbonization can't in any sense be considered an intermediate solution, because there's not even a small working example of it anywhere in the world or any plausible proposal to get from here to there on the timescale we need to avoid disaster.

> Full decarbonization can't in any sense be considered an intermediate solution

I agree, but progressively moving to renewables is not full decarbonization either.

Energy production is not the only source of emissions:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss...

And even if it was, best case scenario it will take a couple of decades to switch away from fossil fuels.

> there's not even a small working example of it anywhere in the world or any plausible proposal to get from here to there on the timescale we need to avoid disaster

Yes but we are in uncharted territory. We don't know how to do it but humanity has to find a way and fracking is certainly not part of where we need to go.

The sensible decision would have been to invest in renewables instead of fracking. Fracking has been a total waste of money even ignoring all the environmental problems it is causing.

James Hansen talked to congress about climate change in the 80s, it's not like this is a new issue.

France is basically decarbonized for electricity. It is very attainable with nuclear.