The basic concept that countries and corporations still disagree on is whether or not to rapidly phase out fossil fuels due to the reality of steady fossil-fuel

The basic concept that countries and corporations still disagree on is whether or not to rapidly phase out fossil fuels due to the reality of steady fossil-fueled global warming and related issues (floods, droughts, heat waves, intense storms, sea level rise, etc.). At this point, at least, the science denialists have little sway, and the arguments come down to 'we can live with it, and should maintain current fossil fuel production levels over the next 30 years' versus 'the results will be so damaging that we have to get off fossil fuels immediately by building out renewable electric systems'. It's certainly technically possible to replace the entire fossil fuel system at present using existing technology: no new inventions are required, it's just a matter of construction at scale. However, this would require a global reorganization and investment on the scale needed to replace the entire fossil fuel system - which was constructed over decades with rough estimates on the order of $10 trillion in inputs. Think of all the drilling rigs, the oil tankers, the networks of pipelines, the hundreds of refineries, the millions of vehicles relying on gasoline and diesel, the gas-burning electric power plants, the coal-burning electric power plants, the trains hauling the coal... Of course, if properly managed, the switch will also be an economic boom - for some. There's the unavoidable fact that economies that have relied on export of fossil fuels to global markets for decades will simply go belly-up under a replacement scenario. Resource export systems typically benefit a relatively small number of elites in the source country (Russian oligarchs, Saudi Arabian princes, Wall Street billionaires, etc.) but there are trickle-down effects. The non-diversified economies will be the hardest hit. In contrast, countries and regions that rely heavily on fossil fuel imports, or on dirty coal - for example China, Japan, Germany, etc. - have the most incentive to make a rapid transition. Europe in general would see benefits from ending reliance on Russian, American and Middle Eastern oil and gas imports. Technologically, this is just progress. Fuels are inefficient means of generating electricity, and direct conversion of sunlight and wind to electricity and storage and distribution of electricity is just more efficient, cleaner, and not reliant on global transport of fuels from sources to destinations. As far as fossil fueled global warming, I'm afraid the tipping point has come and gone. Even with halting fossil fuel use over the next three decades (a 3% reduction and replacement per year scenario with renewables is certainly plausible), there's already a significant permafrost emission input, megadroughts are already a reality, and it'll take another century of slow, steady warming before temperatures begin to stabilize, even under the most optimistic scenario. This means adaptation is going to be an inevitable necessity.