If you do the math the only sensible solution is hardcore degrowth starting yesterday.
If rapid degrowth could be enforced, so could switching to sustainable technologies, which do exist and could be employed.
The level of degrowth needed to avoid warming from fossil fuel use would be extreme, if it's the only knob turned. Even a 90% reduction in the rate of fossil fuel extraction and use would not avoid eventual massive global warming. Degrowth would simply delay that outcome.
And growth accelerates it...
Just look into cement, steel, mining, medicine &c. we're not even remotely close to replace fossil fuel, not even a tiny bit, no one even pretends that it's around the corner.
> would not avoid eventual massive global warming
Well nothing will because in a couple of hundred millions years the sun will be too warm anyways
Meanwhile 70% of the wildlife disappeared since 1970, 50% of insects, and we're debating about some shitty tech that would sequester 0.1% of the co2 we emit each day. CO2 isn't even our biggest problem, rain water isn't even safe to drink anywhere on the planet anymore, PFAS, microplastics, chemicals in rivers/lake/aquifers
People who think co2 capture and that replacing 1.4b of ICE by 1.4B of 3000kg EVs are the future are delusional or straight up cognitively impaired
Underlying all this is the moral approach being taken. It is not enough that environmental problems (perceived or otherwise) be solved; humanity must be punished. Solutions that do not also punish are rejected on that basis alone.
