[drewm1980]

We need a president to declare transitioning of fossil fuels to be a national emergency and also a matter of national defense, and set the military industrial complex to work actually building a sustainable supply chain for energy and materials.

[LordKano]

Using such language is a guarantee that such an effort will not succeed.

Of course it's important and it's inevitable but calling it an "emergency" would by hyperbole and cause it to be taken less seriously.

[mr_toad]

> We need a president

The US is a little under 15% of the world economy, and a little over 15% of the worlds energy use. It’s going to take a lot more than just the actions of one President to solve climate change.

[astrange]

This is the opposite of how politics work. The median voter is near retirement age; their #1 issue is they hate change and their #2 issue is they hate gas prices going up. Anything which looks like either one of these will fail.

So instead of hyping up things you're going to do, you need to hype them down. Ideally, you'd just go around saying you're doing absolutely nothing. (Also, don't raise gas prices.)

[lovecg]

It’s really up to China and, increasingly, India at this point. The Western countries are not emitting much anymore so the impact here is limited.

[astrange]

Reducing emissions means inventing new technology; once you've invented it, you can export it to those other countries emitting more than you are.

(This is not how most people sell it, but it's true.)

[timeon]

We can stop buying things from China and India then.

[lovecg]

A World War 3 is definitely one way to cut emissions and save the Earth. It seems more likely than the world working together on a reasonable plan.