I just don't understand this argument. Cars and airplanes, if powered by clean electricity, make it pretty low impact. It's not even that hard. We spent like $

I just don't understand this argument. Cars and airplanes, if powered by clean electricity, make it pretty low impact. It's not even that hard. We spent like $2 trillion on a coronavirus stimulus bill. $2 trillion on clean electricity infrastructure would be enough to clean up the electric grid to like 90-95% fossil free. Another $2 trillion of incentives and mandates would allow most transportation in the US to be fossil free (pure electric cars and trucks, with plug-in hybrid cars and trucks as an interim measure) and charged by our 90-95% fossil free grid. (Electricity and transport are the two biggest things, followed by heating and industry... which ALSO have fairly straightforward solutions to becoming almost entirely carbonfree.) I'm convinced that a HUGE reason we don't just pull the trigger and do this now is because a huge swath of the environmental activist community is deadset on demanding a reduction in consumption and "modern day luxuries" even when not strictly necessary. That means that it's a political dead end and literally every other goal becomes a higher priority. Any climate action that doesn't "reduce consumption" is seen as not being "real." We should just see it like solving the Ozone Hole (which is now healing, BTW). Instead of giving up refrigeration and air conditioning, we developed non-ozone-depleting refrigerants. I'm sorry that Attenborough probably won't be satisfied with that answer, but we really can have 8 billion humans with modern day luxuries provided we're responsible about it. And it's not even hard. I have two (used) electric cars that I bought for $10k apiece, and they mostly charge using nuclear electricity. With a heat pump (air source with ground-source backup), and I'll be set for heating my house as well.