You do not address that at the production end, you address it at the demand end. No one is going to pay to find and pump oil from the ground and refine it into products if no one needs or wants to BUY it. Money and greed have ALWAYS been behind the oil industry, everywhere in the world. IF the money dries up because there is no demand, they will just find a different product to leverage. (We hope, one that will not end life as we know it the way Big Oil may!)

Been a dry warm winter here.

Been perfect motorcycle riding or bicycle riding weather though. Gonna be a hot summer. Getting people to agree will never happen till too late. My solar still instructions in my blog here are becoming more relevant.

OK, there we have to convince people who own coal & oil consuming devices not to use them. You have to convince shipping & airlines to convert or shut up shop; those who own cars not to use them; those with oil fired or gas electricity generators, heating/cooling systems not to use them. India plans to use coal generation until 2070. That option ends careers, costs lives, and impoverishes millions or billions. You also have to drastically alter all the industries dependent on oil products - like plastics and the electronics industry. Where would anyone's pc be without plastic?

To do that, you need world unity of the major players, and there is no prospect of that. Solving global warming really needs world unity on the subject, radical changes to industry, transport, & farming practises and a willingness to endure real hardship for the greater good. It needs diets to convert away from meat. It also needs unity of purpose between Governments and their oppositions, or no democratic government could enact what's required. That's dream land. I don't see mankind solving this on our own.

I don't discount the lure of economics. If and when we go nuclear, it's all over for fossil fuels as the default fuel energy source. Solar, Wind,and Water have made but a scratch so far but Solar Photovoltaic has the potential to make a dent.

No. All you have to do is make it cheaper (and more satisfying, helping to SAVE THE WORLD) to do it a different way. Why do you think the electric companies started moving to solar BEFORE all the news about climate change hit the media? It is cheaper and faster to implement, has lower total cost over the lifetime, and improves the bottom line: and is generally better for the company than carbon fuels and nuclear in all ways.

We just need to find ways to make that so for the other fossil fuel use cases, and the various industries and nations will JUMP on the better deal. The exceptions will be the fuel producing states that do not care if the rest of the world burns, or wish it would. If we can bring enough change that those become the ONLY outliers, it may be enough. Reducing their economic power by spreading alternative technology that is superior in multiple ways AND a better deal will reduce the power of such outliers markedly.

We should have started all of this in 1974 at the latest, but that does not excuse not working at it NOW.

By the time we do that, the world will be toast. Dream on.

;-) We started a bit over 20 years ago. We are doing it NOW! And accelerating.

There is question if that alone will be enough, so we are also working on other plans and solutions, but this one is critical and well along but with a long way yet to go.

Well, you obviously believe mankind can/will fix it. Let's not argue. Let's see.

There is a decent hint in the fact that France has been producing enough surplus electrical energy because of nuclear they've been selling it at a profit to the EU for years now. I'm pretty sure they still do, especially since the Ukraine invasion and Germany taking nuclear offline. The rewards are so high and the technology is developing so fast I think it's quite reasonable to bet my Son will see it happen. I probably won't as I'm in my mid 70s.

That will be a game changer in numerous ways but back to just talking about Climate Change, a few million years ago, when the Earth was very much warmer than it is now, when even the northernmost tip of Greenland was a forest, mammals lived there, even camels. So undoubtedly as dire as climate change could become, it isn't bet-able odds that all humans will be dead and gone, let alone the Earth "be toast".

Judging by the current loss of land-bound ice mass at both poles, seaports will probably be in serious trouble, but continents are BIG and the development of nuclear will likely be incredibly valuable to those who survive inland.

No. But the Africans will go first.
Then maybe the South Americans next if they continue to abuse their lands to grow Cacao, Avocado, Pasture (for cattle) ... to feed the people up north.

Just look at the desperate face of the migrants on boats arriving in Greece/Italy or marching through the jungle of Honduras, Panama...

Maybe, leclerc78, but it seems to me that since Humanity lives almost everywhere from the poles to the tropics, we've been creative in building shelter and lucky in adaptability. Farmers will have to migrate more toward the poles for many crops, but there really isn't much you can do to live in 6-10 feet plus of water. I see the seacoasts and perhaps some river banks going first.

Most people have no clear idea about the SIZE of Africa! IT would swallow up North America and all of Europe and have room left over for Australia! There are a LOT of different ecological zones, and massive resources. (Massive problems as well, but that is another dozen stories.) IF there is a massive extinction of human kind, Africa is more likely to go LAST than first. There is still good reason to hope that we can avoid that, but it will not be trivial.

My entire feeling on this issue remains the same: "We don't have one f&ckin' idea how 'this planet' actually works." And it is breathtakingly presumptuous for us to pretend otherwise.

We have geologic evidence of climate extremes. Such as: "ice ages." Or, evidence that the largest desert on the planet was once a fertile grassland. Charles Dickens' parents remembered the last time (of many) that the Thames River in London "froze solid." And yet ... here we are today.

Like it or not, our mortality dictates that none of us can be around long enough even to perceive the "vast cycles" that we are capable of detecting evidence of. We simply do not understand how and why they work, and we never will. Therefore, we should not "over-react(!)" to any recent observations. In all of recorded history, and despite endless generations of roosters and chickens, the sky has never fallen. And, even if it one day did, "we puny humans" could do absolutely nothing to prevent it.

Interesting rant, but it has no basis in fact or science. The proof is all around us that we CAN do things to create or prevent disasters, and HAVE. Some clearly man caused changes have been clear during my lifetime, and I plan to live for a while longer. I fully expect to see more changes, and HOPE to see more steps taken to reduce or prevent the scope of the thermal disaster we have created.

About that "sky falling" thing, spoken to a dinosaur recently?

First hand experience is great but that doesn't mean all second hand experience is crap. One of the main things that separates humans from other animals is written language. Keeping records for subsequent generations was and is a hugs game changer and literally an adjunct to Evolution. The fact that "the more we know, the more we grasp what we don't know" is not a call to doubt everything we don't see, hear, touch, smell or feel with our own senses. In fact, singular first hand experience, has it's own set of difficulties.