The engineers have alternatives to more than enough cases where greenhouse gasses are produced or released. The "political" problem is how to solve the economi

The engineers have alternatives to more than enough cases where greenhouse gasses are produced or released. The "political" problem is how to solve the economics problem. As long as society "subsidizes" damage to the environment, by not charging the damagers, then damage will continue to be extremely lucrative and near impossible to stop. But the incentives for Big Energy to resist change are so huge, that I don't see a timely solution without explicitly co-opting them. I.e. solving their economic problem to solve our environmental problem. Get every Big Energy CFO into a room and establish what kind of incentives they would need to find hard CO2 drawdown legislation a financially attractive opportunity worth pursuing with greener alternatives en masse. New massive subsidies for Big Energy would not be a fair use of citizen's taxes. But the alternative of continuing to "subsidize" their destruction of the environment is far more costly. And the side benefits of greater energy security and independence, international stability, etc., would be worth a great deal too.