[scottLobster]

Even if consumers gave up hydrocarbons there's still airlines, ships, trucks, anything involving commercial transport really. Not to mention power plants.

I'd also like to point out that in the US roughly half of all people can't cover a $1000 emergency. A 10-20% increase to one's electric bill (which is the lower bound of the 100% renewable options in my area, last I looked) is a vital concern for that demographic. Sure you can argue that the government/people/society should account for that such that they can afford the increase, but then you're not just talking switching the power grid to renewables (a daunting task in and of itself), but a massive social program along with it.

Sadly I have no hope that our current institutions or the environmental activists will be able to manage the transition effectively. Maine just said no to clean hydroelectric power from Quebec because they're concerned about the impact of transmission lines on their forest, and New England in general is burning oil power plants and importing liquid natural gas by sea to meet heating/electricity demand because they refuse to build any new natural gas pipelines.

But nonetheless climate change must be addressed at some point. Which means (in the US at least) we're going to put it off until the last minute, make harsh, blunt, stupid changes, and screw the people least able to afford the cost. Meanwhile those of us making 6 figures will be mildly inconvenienced, and those even richer won't even bat an eye, all while crooning about how noble they are on TV.