> I'd like to know how anyone with an ounce of reality thinks we're going to reduce emissions substantially faster than we already are.

Depends on what you mean by "ounce of reality".

In reality, there's little that can be currently done mainly because of political policy. That's unlikely to change.

But, assuming policy could be changed, then there is actually quite a bit that could reduce emissions substantially much faster. Carbon taxes, better policies around railways (perhaps nationalizing and expanding ala india), more subsidies for renewable generation and battery production (perhaps funded by carbon taxes?). Stronger regulations on private vehicles (perhaps ban personal private ownership of large trucks and suvs?). But also trade deals and modernization efforts/investments with lagging countries to help them develop carbon free economies.

Now, I don't think policy change is likely. I do however think there are quiet a few policies that could significantly drive change faster than it is already going.

Well, when even moderate gas price increases lead to either mass protests (e.g. https://apnews.com/article/colombia-protests-fuel-price-hike...) or the election of climate deniers (such as in the US), policy is (unfortunately for the climate) not going to change fast enough.

A 50% gas hike isn't moderate.

But I agree, it's something that'd have to be delicately done. Ideally phased in over time.

I also agree, probably wouldn't be fast enough, just faster to significantly faster than what we are currently doing.

Emissions will reduce substantially when the average temperature is 60C/140F across the globe. Life will be very different then.

In my mind the only realistic solution left is to make up the difference with solar radiation management, and I would bet it’s what will end up happening

You won’t be able to stop poor countries from spraying aerosol into the stratosphere if it gets too hot on the ground

Yes, global geoengineering will be probably deployed to buy us some time to get off fossil fuels.

> Rome wasn't built in a day.

We only have a day.

> I'd like to know how anyone with an ounce of reality thinks we're going to reduce emissions substantially faster than we already are.

The problem is political. The idea that politics is fixed, unchangeable, is obviously false. For example, look at the radical changes since 2015.

> We were asleep at the wheel for maybe 20 years too long on renewables, but the pace over the last 10+ years has been mind-boggling, and especially the pace the last 4 years.

The construction of "renewables" requires massive amounts of emissions. "Renewables" do not move us towards 'net zero', because the critical part of the NET is the removal and storage of tens of billions of tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere, every year. Forever. At least that's my non-technical understanding of what "net zero" means.

> I'd like to know how anyone with an ounce of reality thinks we're going to reduce emissions substantially faster than we already are.

For anyone with "an ounce of reality"' we aren't reducing emissions. We haven't reduced our emissions at all. It's the opposite, they've gone up every year, I believe around 50-60 % since 1990 when we agreed to reduce them.

Emissions per kwh has gone down.