I'd prefer lynching the fossil billionnaires, restoring order by removing surveillance oligarchs from life, and fighting politicians that don't do shit to stop global warming. All three are enemies of the proletariat.

The only way out of this is significant carbon capture on top of emitting more and we have no technology to do this effectively at all.

Two responses.

Response #1 is that this is the same logic that the IPCC and many other climate agencies keep bringing up. In my humble opinion they are basically just giving us this idea that mathematically we can still fix this via carbon subtraction but they don't really touch on the viability of this as a practical alternative. The problematic part is that if the technology doesn't exist and can't even theoretically exist because of basic thermodynamics, this is actually not a scientifically / technically sound idea even if the math was numerically valid in some divorced from reality sense.

Response #2 is that the argument is actually fundamentally wrong on one basic element. In order to reverse warming, we would have to now do climate forcing in the cooling direction. What is required is for the earth energy balance to go back in the opposite direction which would require we artificially lower CO2 below the pre industrial starting point and leave it there for decades and decades to actually refreeze the cryosphere and reverse everything. Most of the "net zero/ carbon capture" schemes are only considering a "pause" of additional pollution, not any sort of repair of the earth climate system. Its important to notice they want to do carbon sequestration to limit the warming to 1.5 or 2.0, not to sequester the CO2 to MINUS 1 to eventually put us to 0.0. Zero is the eventual "fix". 1.5 isn't a "fix". So like...

The conclusion is that this is 96.3% psychological and not really a serious idea. This is telling people what they want to hear and nobody wants to be the person yelling fire in a crowded theater and starting an existential crisis...

You can tell this is purely a mirage because some very basic arguments simply demolish the illusion. This is grade school level math and science just being applied critically and the whole idea falls completely apart in a fairly horrifying way. It's clearly a farce.

The decision of humanity has been made. And it has become rude to point it out.

No capture without a magical energy source. Which we anyway just would use to cook the planet directly.

You don't even have to reduce consumption. You can consume all you'd like. Fuck with modern solar and energy storage tech we could consume /more/ if we'd just stop setting everything on fire for lazy and stupid reasons.

We learned about climate change in the 1980s in school, and I distinctly remember that a whole bunch of new cars around 1986 and 1987 came painted green. I had never seen green cars before during my lifetime as a school aged kid. To me it was a new color for a car. In my childhood brain it was an obvious connection to the perception that gas cars were considered problematic. [ * ]

If I remember correctly the mass media around 1988 was saying that we could only grow carbon for a few more years and then we would have to plateau carbon production on a per annum basis.

[ * ] at around the same time as this was going on, there was a famine in Ethiopia, and I learned that automobiles in north America had been implicated in causing the drought in Africa because they modulated ocean evaporation rates. And that globally cars don't really cause most of the CO2. The system started to seem very complicated and the dynamics were not simple cause-effect chains...

So, what is your plan?