Any solution relying on collective sacrifice is unrealistic IMO. I believe in geoingineering because it's better compatible with how economy works. Either that or we discover a magic abundant non-polluting energy source, but I woldn't rely on that

▲

ahartmetz 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We're already doing it and making progress. It's not instant and we still have delayed consequences to deal with, so short-term fixes also make sense.

	▲	oytis 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You can use different metrics for progress, but it looks like world oil consumption has nearly doubled since 2000

▲

jcynix 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Oh, yes, geoengineering, because nothing can go wrong …

Please read the classic book by Edward Tenner: Why Things Bite Back. Technology and the Revenge of Unintended Consequences, 1996 (oldie but goldie and must read for people who think technical solutions have no unintended (and irrevocable) consequences Mike eucalyptus trees in California, or the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_toad in Australia, among others.