Beyond this title, most titles and the prevailing culture focuses on adding non-fossil fuel sources. But adding more alternatives doesn't mean decreasing carbon

Beyond this title, most titles and the prevailing culture focuses on adding non-fossil fuel sources. But adding more alternatives doesn't mean decreasing carbon emissions and pollution. History shows that finding a new energy source leads to using the old ones and the new one. Only decreasing burning fossil fuels decreases burning fossil fuels. Focusing the important measure: carbon and toxic pollution emitted will get results. Whether politically feasible or not, the fastest, most effective way to reduce carbon and pollution emissions is first to close fossil fuel extraction and production, then to solve what problems arise. We'll need less peaker plants and nuclear. People will adjust faster than anyone expects, I'd estimate in weeks to months, not years. Since the people polluting the most (U.S., Europe, rich people everywhere) aren't using most of their energy for life necessities or even things they'd miss, most Americans can decrease our use 70 percent or more just with low-hanging fruit (source: I've reduced mine over 90 percent and each step improved my life, mostly getting rid of waste and frivolities). We'd have to make sure hospitals, public transit, and some infrastructure keeps powered during the transition, and protect people on the margins, but most people will quickly adjust to flying less, not leaving the a/c on 24/7 six months of the year, eating less meat, etc. Tldr: 1. Focusing on lowering emissions will result in lowering emissions more than focusing on increasing alternatives. 2. Lowering supply of fossil fuels would create the changes we seek faster than trying to prepare for the changes first, mainly because we waste so much.