Once we have mostly decarbonized there are many techniques for capturing carbon if you have enough energy

Perhaps, though we would need to do that long before the turn of the century. People just don't want to believe how little time there is left to stop catastrophic global warming.

All the trends I've read recently put us to going to no higher than 3 degrees of warming. The trends that put us toward over 3 degrees of warming were made around the time period of ~2010 when the trends were much worse than they turned out to be over the 2010s.

3 degrees is very bad, but it's quite survivable. We can of course always do better. But right now I'm quite happy with the direction things are going and the current trends but still push for trying to do more where we can.

Most economies are aiming for net zero by 2050.

A goal, which it is now clear, that would have been absolutely trivial to meet while making a solid profit on the deal, if we'd just started earlier, like when the problem became widely known four decades ago.

But we didn't. So we can probably still do it, and we can probably still come out richer, but some people are still trying to slow it down so they can profit from the short term chaos and impoverishing and risking our lives to do so.

The only possible solution four decades ago was nuclear, and even then it was only a partial solution, and which people oppose for illogical reasons. The story now is much more hopeful. I also hope nuclear can be a part of it, but I think battery advances are more likely to beat it to the starting line.

Climate change is not just about electricity production.

There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear.

Notable mentions: carbon fees, preventing deforestation, not subsidizing fossil fuels, not actively encouraging methane release from oilfields, more efficient cars, trains, insulation, heat pumps and soar water heaters but really the list is very, very long.

> Climate change is not just about electricity production.

Agreed, but that was the part that could be addressed with nuclear.

> There was a wide array of solutions available 40 years ago, including, but not limited to nuclear.

I think we're in agreement, except for the word "solution". The things you mention are not solutions, but rather mitigations, bandaids, things that slow the pace of climate change. Which still would have been extremely useful to buy us more time to decarbonize.

> Most economies are aiming for net zero by 2050.

We emitted what the eartg can absorb (3Gteq) back in 1990. Since then, emissions trippled.

Net zero is not enough, there is still a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, so the temperature will reach +3°C.

Net Zero by 2050 and peaking global emissions before 2030 should be enough to meet the 1.5C target according to the IPCC.

Assuming we follow that plan and don't hit any tipping points, we should stay under 3C, but yeah it's possible.

I think three degrees of warming is unavoidable at this point. The massive coordination and effort it would take to avoid that seems like wishful thinking at best. I still hope I'm pleasantly surprised here, but I'm skeptical.

It's going to come down to mitigating, and that might mean different things in different places.

I think there will be some amount of geo-engineering to cool the poles and avoid some of the sea level rise and permafrost melting. There will also be some active carbon removal, but we also will not reach zero emissions either. That may mostly balance out, or reach "net zero".

There will also likely be a slow migration away from low lying coastal areas, as well as seawall construction.