Many countries would 'freeze in the dark' if coal was straightlined to zero too early. It is incumbent on the other nations to gift other nations who can not af

Many countries would 'freeze in the dark' if coal was straightlined to zero too early. It is incumbent on the other nations to gift other nations who can not afford zero coal the means to reduce carbon emissions - they will also benefit. This HAS to be a global drawdown of coal use. This includes creating new chemistry to replace element or spending the $$ to absorb CO2 emissions in making cement at the source. Cement needs a furnace - change to electric heat. Cement exudes CO2 in manufacture in an electric or any furnace - absorb when made. Cement curing with water in use emits little. Electric furnaces can make steel - costs quite a bit more, but it is doable. This CO2 problem is an 'existential threat' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_catastrophic_risk It can be done in an instant - dinosaurs ~~65 million years ago, or we can suffer the creeping rise of the seas and the death of a large part of all species on the earth gradually and inexorably as the climate shifts. You all know the arguments - as she says - 'Blah Blah Blah'