For the record I live in Sweden, which has a per capita carbon foot print of around 4.5 ton vs 16.5 for the US. That's a massive difference. We are blessed with

For the record I live in Sweden, which has a per capita carbon foot print of around 4.5 ton vs 16.5 for the US. That's a massive difference. We are blessed with rivers which we can destroy for hydro and some rusting nuclear plants. US has a carbon intensity per kWh of ≈ 439 g, and Sweden ≈ 45 g. I'm not sure about how that chart is constructed, but for me it's obvious that we need to lower the carbon intensity of electricity production right now. That would "eliminate" 32% of the chart, and I guess also have a dent in the other pies. I don't see how stopping consuming or fundamentally changing society is a better or even faster way to achieving our goals. I think it's absurd to talk about trying to radically change society before you stop burning fossil fules for electricity. Cutting emissions dramatically and immediately is by deploying nuclear, and by electrifying your rail lines.