Very surprised that you don’t mention overpopulation and resource limits. It won’t be enough to change energy sources.

Even before climate change impacts began to manifest substantially, human overpopulation was driving the Earth’s fastest mass extinction.

We can look at over-consumption, but there is only so much we can reduce, per capita — there is a high overhead to maintaining any form of advanced human civilization (transportation and communications infrastructures, higher learning, nutritious food, device-assisted labor, scientific advancements, modern medical advancements, leisure time, etc., etc., ), based on any known technologies. By some estimates, we are already consuming at 2-3x the rate that nature can replenish… and that is not to mention critical minerals that do not appreciably replenish.

It is also worth noting — when we look at relative consumption rates — that the “bottom” 90% of people (who consume less than the “top” 10% of consumers — mostly DON’T WANT TO LIVE LIKE THAT — they CAN’T WAIT to live with the benefits, security, and comforts of 1st world countries.

The most detailed estimates of the Earth’s human carrying capacity typically range from 800M to 2.0B. Those estimates are based on healthy ecosystems. Recovery from today’s heavily deteriorated ecosystems means a lower “recovery population,” almost certainly not much more than 1.0B. An egalitarian human civilization — rather than one, like today’s, that requires deep inequities — also requires lower numbers.

So, in addition to an all-out effort to mitigate the emerging climate catastrophe, it is necessary to embrace rapid de-growth, with the ultimate goal of a steady-state (“circular”) economic system of no more than ~1.0-1.5B people.

On the up-side, rapid de-growth can also be an important strategy for cutting GHG emissions. We need to abandon the concept of economic growth, and the economic rules and frameworks that value or require growth.