The world is losing the war against climate change

The war is perfectly winnable, but not within the context of a democracy. Here you would need the equivalent of a state of emergency, lasting for perhaps a century, to force the necessary changes upon an unwilling public, who are quite happy to sort trash into three piles, stop using straws, or engage in other such cargo-cult behaviours, but not to give up their iPhones, 2nd cars or annual vacations.

Ironically, a country such as China is much better equipped than the US or Europe to handle this kind of emergency. Once the leading figures become convinced of what needs to be done, they can implement the necessary measures in full and overnight, and ensure the necessary public support via the state-controlled educational system and media.

In the West, we are reduced to endless haggling, as lobbies strive to convert the emergency into additional demand for new "green" product lines or for bogus geoengineering solutions, and political representatives end up implementing toothless half-measures that achieve nothing.

You might be interested in The Queen's Commonwealth Canopy: https://queenscommonwealthcanopy.org/

I can only speak to some of your questions.

2. Well the current temperature is somewhat sustainable because we haven't yet destroyed the Earth.. but that's not really what it's about. The condition of the Earth is not the present temperature, but the present condition of the atmosphere which is becoming increasingly filled with these gases; higher temperatures are merely the consequence. The higher temperatures themselves don't contribute much to a snowballing effect, except in the case of wildfires. If tomorrow, we magically stopped emitting a net positive amount of greenhouse gases, the Earth would stabilize and return to a previous cooler state because of carbon absorption from forests and so on, but this is impossible because it would require a commitment from 7 billion people.

3. The are plenty of ways to extract gases directly but many are fairly costly and only a few hold promise of being economically profitable. Extraction of the CO2 (and other gases like methane) would certainly lower temperatures, as they trap the heat in the atmosphere that would otherwise radiate back into space. The most clear empirical evidence we have of this on a planetary scale is Venus, which has a truly hellish climate because of it's C02 atmosphere.

5. This can't be a serious question. But, actually, there is the idea of iron fertilization of the ocean where dumping granulated iron into presently lifeless tracts of would cause massive blooms in ocean life and would have a substantial carbon capturing effect. It's likely to be a very cheap solution, relative to the outsize effect it would have.

6. Biggest benefit to warming is an increase in arable land as the climate is warmer towards the poles, which should more than make up for some losses to desertification. The other benefit is increased crop yields due to more CO2 in the air. Not much of a consolation tbh.

Hum...

Solar prices are comparable to coal nowadays, and getting lower by the month. Besides, where is that investment in solar or wind stalled? I haven't seen any place like that. Instead, I only see people talking more and more about solar, even to the point that some want to get off-grid for economical reasons (I don't agree with their calculations).

I would really like to see some study about how long will solar power need to ramp-up until coal becomes uneconomical. I would also like to see some study about how much oil, gas and coal we can actually use, with what levels of energy returns.

Instead, here it is that sensationalist piece based on basically no data at all, claiming the end of the world... At the economist.com. Journalism used to be better.

> A private think tank says the total cost of the Fukushima disaster could reach ¥70 trillion ($626 billion), or more than three times the government’s latest estimate.

But I guess you'll say that $626 bil is just 15% of Japan's GDP, totally manageable over the long term.

I'm sure the communities where future nuclear plants are to be build will love this argument: "if disaster strikes, remember, it's for the greater good"