[rayiner]

> If COVID has shown us anything, the answer to the last question is unequivocally no. COVID has been a very obvious salient problem and most nations failed the test. If we can't beat COVID, we will not beat climate change. No technology can change human nature.

I think COVID actually teaches a different lesson. Our experience with COVID teaches that it has to be technology that addresses climate change, not political or sociological solutions. Lockdowns ultimately failed in even the most socially disciplined countries like Germany. But we got a vaccine developed in record time.

Similarly for climate change, solutions that require "everyone to cooperate and do their part" won't work. It just won't. Even if the USA and Europe went to zero emissions tomorrow, growing CO2 emissions in industrializing China, India, and Africa are going to keep increasing global CO2 emissions. It's rational for them. Bangladesh is going to be one of the hardest-hit countries from climate change--an estimated 30-50% hit to GDP by 2100. But investing in rapid growth and industrialization, even at the cost of climate, still makes sense for Bangladesh. One, because of game theory--Bangladesh cannot by itself avoid climate change, due to emissions by other countries. Two, because of math--a 30-50% hit to what Bangladesh's economy could be in 80 years with strong growth would still leave it better of on net than risking doing anything to compromise the 5-7% annual GDP growth it has now and stagnating for that time.

To mitigate climate change, the developed world needs moonshot technologies. We need to not only be investing in renewable energy--although that's necessary, going to zero emissions will still not be enough. We need to be investing massive amounts of money into carbon sequestration technology.

[telotortium]

And to those who point out "China, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand were able to suppress COVID through lockdowns", it's important to note they were able to nip it in the bud, before community spread had become established. This does speak to the effectiveness of a drastic lockdown, combined with travel restrictions, in eliminating COVID if there are only a small number of infections, and we should commend those countries for being able to do so. However, if you don't lock down very early, lockdowns don't seem to be able to control spread enough to eliminate the disease, only to somewhat reduce the infection rate, and even a successful suppression of COVID spread in a country will fail in the long term if travel restrictions are not extremely strict (see the EU).

In other words, suppression achieved through lockdowns is an unstable equilibrium. Only herd immunity, ideally achieved via vaccination, produces a stable equilibrium for suppression.

Similarly with global warming, while we may be able to temporarily reduce emissions, at significant economic cost, via political and sociological solutions without new technology, this reduction is an unstable equilibrium. The only permanent solution - the only stable equilibrium - is via technological means (cheap renewable energy and carbon sequestration).