@MrMakabar the issue is that those solutions won't be brought onboard before its too late, and as you identified, they're the low hanging fruit.

Taxes on the rich won't discourage them from emitting.

@MrMakabar I used to be in favour of that system until I realised it only works when there are alternatives, and there aren't for most goods and services. If you can't swap to something clean, then all it does is raise the price.

It increases the burden on the worst off in society, without in any way impacting the wealthiest; like all eco-austerity policies.

@MrMakabar Political capture will prevent meaningful change until it's far too late, because the money that finances political parties or provides jobs for their constituents has a profit incentive that can never be squared with climate action.

The world will need to change. We either seize the day and change it ourselves or we watch it spiral into resource wars and 100s of millions dead or displaced.

We're already past the point where capitalism can innovate its way out of the crisis.

@MrMakabar emissions trading schemes don't reduce emissions, they just change where those emissions take place. Until we calculate emissions based on consumption all we'll do is outsource emissions to places with looser regulation, and there's no incentive for those places to change.

The EU re-wilding provisions were neutered, and even if they hadn't been, it wouldn't have come close to meeting land use requirements to offset current emissions.

@MrMakabar @XTL we have the tools, but governments wedded to profit and growth won't use them, and certainly won't use them quickly enough.

We'll need a wave of revolutions to improve our democracies; shortening terms, dispersing power to communities and as much as possible moving from electing representatives who can be easily captured and subverted to truly democratic decisions which are harder to manipulate.