I'd recommend looking up a few things: how much private wealth is invested in fossil fuel industries, how much carbon extraction costs, how much money is spent

I'd recommend looking up a few things: how much private wealth is invested in fossil fuel industries, how much carbon extraction costs, how much money is spent subsidizing fossil fuels, how much money is spent on renewable sources of energy, and then speculate on how to fund it. "get more nuclear" is ok, for whatever it means. >It's going to be hard to get people to care about this if the takeaway is going to be "other people have to do what we say" as it usually is with climate stuff. Eh, more like hold the ultra-wealthy accountable for profiteering off, or at the expense of, the planet? and the (comfortable) existence of lots of people based on how things are going? (The really cool thing is, most (all?) of the individual climate-shaming is propaganda from corporations who know damn well that individuals contribute very little to climate change compared to corporations themselves and the wealthy capital class.) > The report finds that these billionaires’ investments give an annual average of 3m tonnes of CO2e per person, which is a million times higher than 2.76 tonnes of CO2e which is the average for those living in the bottom 90 percent. Yes, I understand that's via investment, but that's still kinda precisely my point. Why shouldn't they be held to account?