this inevitably turns into an argument over the definition of "realistic" that then in turn becomes an argument over hope/positivity-vs-doomer that then inevita

this inevitably turns into an argument over the definition of "realistic" that then in turn becomes an argument over hope/positivity-vs-doomer that then inevitably turns into an argument over values. with that caveat out of the way, here are some examples from other people you can mull around as you ponder the scope and scale. #1 the IPCC themselves. As part of AR6 one of its reports is on mitigation options: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-g... #2 - Bernie, if elected, wanted to start a 'green new deal' jobs program that would re-direct most of the military budget as well as greatly increase federal spending such that somewhere in the vicinity of 1.5T/year would be spent on the transition. The hope was that in de-escalating our global military presence he could also entice china into a grand bargain that involved them putting more of their military budget into it as well. Again regardless of your opinion on the realisticness of it, its worth recognizing as one of the only people and plans that got the scope and scale correct. #3 - https://drawdown.org/ https://drawdown.org/ Drawdown isn't a policy so much as a menu of options that have been explored, studied, modeled, quantified and ranked.