That would be great, but I think we're just going to enjoy the ride while it lasts. Some states are going to aggressively invest in solutions, others will deny any problem exists and then ask for handouts when things go sideways, the government is going to flip flop every one or two terms. Honestly that's one of the better realistic scenarios that we could hope for.
The time horizon for those issues is not compatible with electoral terms. There is no incentive for any politician to tackle such big issue. Even though it might become existential. We would deal with the externalities until we get swallowed as it becomes unavoidable. The more we wait and the more painful it would be.
That’s what they do. Always.
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels and industry totaled 37.15 billion metric tons (GtCO₂) in 2022. Emissions are projected to have risen 1.1 percent in 2023 to reach a record high of 37.55 GtCO₂.
Instead of pushing upwards to break the 40 Gigatonne per annum ceiling maybe work to reduce consumption patterns, efficiencies, question whether high cost of energy environments are the ideal locations for populations to expand into, etc.
The fact that US (Texas in particular) is producing more now, does not mean that the resource is unlimited. Like mentioned before we produce more, but it is more difficult and expensive to produce oil (and not count the ecological impact of fracking).
The only thing that we produce more than ever, means that we are accelerating as we are seeing the wall coming. We are addict to fossil fuel and it is a hell of drug. It is free, we just have to drill. It is energy dense. But like a drug, the more we use it and the less easy it is to use something else.
We need to withdraw, and wean off. The more we wait and the faster the withdrawal would have to be. US needs to build new (extend the old) nuclear reactors, modernize the grid as electricity will power the country more and more, from transportation, heating/cooling, industry, etc.
FWiW I've spent decades in mineral and energy resource exploration and modelling and would likely be regarded by many as "part of the problem".
I'm left with a keen sense of increasing effort for decreasing supply and a strong sense a large part of the problem lies with demand and expectations.
If CO2 wasn't building up so fast, the situation would almost be easy.
Texas became the 8th larger economy thanks to the increasing oil production (larger than Russia or Canada). But Texas should invest that money (like Norway or UAE does) as it won't last for ever. When oil is gone (or too expensive to extract) people will leave Texas, and Texas will be a wasteland with orphan wells everywhere polluting underground water.
In general, it would be wise for US to get an exit plan, for when oil would not be so easy to extract (yes it is more difficult now, but the oil price is still high enough). Oil price can be counter intuitive as it is the main fuel of the world economy. So, if the production declines, the price can go up, but not too much. At some point, economies would shutdown, and the demand would fall sharply. Only the countries that would be out of oil (i.e. using electricity from nuclear, solar, wind, hydro) would continue to be humming. The other countries would enter in chaos, unrest and war. Which would generate economical migrations and more chaos.
Again countries should plan for peak fossil fuel, and even if they are lucky to have some oil underground, they should plan to massively transform their economy to electricity and transition the production from fossil to more sustainable production like nuclear, solar, wind and hydro.