(My response is from a US perspective) You make a lot of very strong claims that you think are fair handed but are terribly biased. "solar farms that are supe

(My response is from a US perspective) You make a lot of very strong claims that you think are fair handed but are terribly biased. "solar farms that are super expensive and require crazy amounts of acres per watt". We can afford to cut taxes by $100B a year despite having a budget deficit. How crazy expensive is it for the US to maintain a vast military to secure our access to oil and gas (among other things)? We can afford $700B every single year to do that, but spending tens of billions of dollars on green energy would be crazy expensive. As for acres, we have lots of them to spare. Yes, wind farms kill birds. Do the people who point this out ever weigh that against the number of dead animals and people and reduced health from coal and oil? Do they really care about the birds? Have they ever made an omelette? Classifying electric cars as a "magic solution" is silly; they are just one small part of an incremental solution. Nobody says they are magic or the total solution. Your verbiage is emotion based and not fact based. Apparently these tactics worked on you, but I find them lazy and not compelling. Finally, addressing your overall point: If I'm fat, I should eat better. You are right to say that cutting out sugar from my coffee won't solve my problems if I continue eating two hamburgers and fries for lunch. But to reason that I might as well have the sugar in my coffee because I haven't cut down on everything else is just factually wrong. Incomplete solutions may still buy time to address those other issues, and incrementally reducing use may mean we still suffer terrible consequences, but perhaps not quite as intensely.