[nonbirithm]

Some part of the solution will probably involve forcibly taking away some of the freedoms people have.

We have the freedom in the United States to go out and buy a car and drive it as much as one likes until it physically cannot be driven anymore. There is no limit on the amount of fuel one can expend or emissions one person can make by driving. And cars are a major contributor to the emissions problem.

If people are not willing to give up driving gasoline-powered cars because they have the freedom to say no, will we simply abandon efforts to make people change their driving habits or enforce greater restrictions on their emissions?

It feels like a drastic solution, but the effects of climate change are also drastic. I'm not sure they can be solved with feel-good measures like planting trees when more and more people choose activities with emissions which will wipe out any gains because it's convenient to do so in car-based societies and everyone else does it.

EVs would be a good first step if we can manufacture enough, somehow convince everyone there's enough personal benefit to switch and source electricity from renewable sources. But most of the country still runs on gas at the moment.

[smileysteve]

The U.S. not only has the freedom, but the subsidization; be it roads that aren't paying property tax, fuel taxes that don't earn enough to maintain existing roads, delayed maintenance -- but all of the way to oil exploration rights.

The 18.4c federal gasoline tax should be almost doubled to 34c, ignoring that road construction costs have outpaced inflation.

Where car accidents were a leading cause of accidental injury and death hospitals (especially rural) and have costs exceeding inflation and medical debt is a major cause of bankruptcy and I hospital tax deduction.