Thanks, Adrian. Reducing consumption should be a given. I'm highly skeptical of any claims that we can do a one-for-one swap for renewables to keep living at current consumption levels and population. It *may* be possible, but I haven't seen anything compelling yet.

I do hold out some hope that there are potential geoengineering mitigations. Not "solutions," per se, but potential ways to slow warming and carbon re-sequestration to get the 420 ppm down.

What's no good is if these stopgap measures introduce more / worse problems, and they could, so we have to be immensely careful. Also not good is having these stopgaps engender a "business as usual" mindset. "Hey, it's all going to be fixed -- let's take the yacht out again, and pass the champagne!"

Ideally, de-growth and careful geoengineering work together. But that seems like a very, very narrow path.

Ultimately, while my understanding and emotional response to climate change / catastrophe is always evolving, nothing yet has turned me truly techno-optimist. So if there's any camp I agree with more, it's the doomers.