[danhor]

> We need to embrace carbon-free electricity (whether its nuclear or solar or whatever) and electrify as many things as possible.

We need to do that (and even that is proving very hard, looking at the issues building out electrified ground transport and electrifying heating) and it will help a lot, but it won't be enough.

We have quite a few sectors where (economic or even feasible) non-carbon solutions aren't very forthcoming: Especially in (animal-based) food and aviation, but also manufacturing of e.g. new steel or concrete. These account for a huge chunk of emissions and reducing their emissions close to 0 in the next 20 years doesn't seem very likely. Looking at other technologies that are currently economically viable, such as solar, wind, electric cars or LED lighting, 20 years for nearly full adoption is very optimistic.

Reducing emissions there will mean also reducing consumption (and thus production, or the other way around) of those products. If we only accept superior technology as a means to "solve" climate change, we won't.

That'll very likely not mean degrowth as a whole as many sectors of the economy, especially the growing ones, are very compatible with an "electrify-everything" approach.