The counterpoint is that global warming is real and is going to obsolete or destroy a significant amount of human infrastructure, destroy enormous wealth, and d

The counterpoint is that global warming is real and is going to obsolete or destroy a significant amount of human infrastructure, destroy enormous wealth, and displace millions of people. Any analysis of “what we’re doing to fight to global warming” that does not start with the physical reality of it is pointless. And yet a tremendous amount of the conversation does just that. The alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not that everything just keeps going as it was. Our choice is pay to decarbonize, or pay to deal with everything in my first paragraph. We can pick either one but there is no secret 3rd option where we shout down the “renewable maximalists” and then everything is fine. So the practical answer is that we’ll do things much faster when we feel we must. So predicting the pace has more to do with predicting public/government sentiment than it does with linearly extrapolating what we’ve done up to this point. You could not have predicted the nuclear bomb in 1930 by extrapolating weapons development since 1910.