Canada

In the future, and they’re not too distant future mind you, the technology will finally advance to the point where we can begin to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. But we’re not there yet and we’re not talking governments and people into giving up their jobs and lifestyle until we can offer them technology but doesn’t require that. That’s just a simple fact

We've had this technology for decades already. Trains / Buses for transportation, local bikes, solar and wind power for electricity. Sure, this wasn't 100% carbon neutral and still is not, but we've had the opportunity to heavily reduce our fossil fuel dependence for decades without compromising on lifestyle.

There is already a couple of generations of dead people who were responsible for decades of this rapid decline.

It's infuriating that we have known about the source of the problem, and have known what problems it will cause for my entire lifetime and now it becomes my children's generation's problem to deal with.

*by the time - have you been outside this summer?

I have not seen a carbon capture that takes less energy that what we got from the burning the carbon. as long as that is the case carbon captures has no use until we are 100% not using fossil fuels.

I wish I had an article on-hand at the moment. We're able to remove like 5% of annual, ongoing emissions at most with carbon capture. And, as you say, carbon capture is primarily used as a reason to delay the transition away from fossil fuels by its proponents. So the solution is not "Carbon capture, but don't slam the downvote button just yet," it's "reduce and stop burning fossil fuels (first, second, third, fourth, etc.), and then and only then does carbon capture become relevant. We need to be careful about discussing carbon capture since, as we agree, "carbon capture" is primarily a fossil fuel industry speaking point. After all, (created) confusion about a so-called "carbon tax" completely beat us as an electorate and slowed our progress away from FF

To drastically reduce fossil fuel use, I don't think the average person needs to do that much.

We need the uber-rich, who have the largest carbon footprints, to rein in their fossil fuel use. More than anything, we need governments and other decision-makers to say "no" to the FF lobbyists and commit to transitioning to clean energy through policy.

But the mega-rich don't want to make their concessions. So they spend billions trying to convince average persons like you and me that the transition will be too burdensome FOR US, so we should be opposed to it. For example, the villainification of "carbon tax".

Something I've been thinking about lately is how failure to pivot to renewables (and the associated propaganda I outlined above) predominantly affects 'the West' (ie, US, Canada, UK, Australia). In contrast, China still burns a lot of coal but they're pivoting to renewables faster than anyone. This helps them build relations with Cuba and African countries such as through solar energy development partnerships. With the US-Israel-manufactured war with Iran showing how volatile fossil fuel prices are to interruption and manipulation - I think 'the West's' relative failure to pivot to renewables will be a big means by which it cedes soft power to China already and especially going forward. The O&G industry doesn't mind dependency on its products though, and they won't sacrifice their profits today to position Canada for success tomorrow. Keep lobbying for that next (taxpayer-funded) pipeline! /s

It would take a global change. I fully believe some places can change, but not change in a sufficient way to make a meaningful difference.

I'm doing my part, no kids, no car, public Transit, I avoid meat, etc but even if everybody in Canada did the same as me, while it would significantly reduce our climate footprint, it wouldn't realistically change anything.

That said, people should still do it. Better to die fighting I believe.

If you look at the last 50 years I think you know what will happen