Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Lay out some kind of outline of a plan.

1.  What will be closed and replaced with what else.
2.  How much it will cost, and who will pay for it.
3.  The reduction in CO2 generated, and the impact on climate over time according to the models.

What I see everywhere is a bunch of pandering to the masses so as to PRETEND to be doing something serious.  I've seen PR, and this looks like PR to me.

Seriously, one of our two political parties pretty much actively:

A.  Denies climate change is a real thing
B.  Says it is natural and normal
C.  Says it is good for the earth and growing seasons
D.  Says that nothing can be done so we'll just have to live with it.

I'd be happy if both parties acknowledged there was a problem, invested in green energy and new technology to help solve the problem, and actively worked to mitigate current carbon outputs.

How much will it cost?  According to the insurance industry, global warming already costs Americans untold billions, and that number is accelerating.  Economists say that we are on the other end of the curve now.  It will cost us more to do nothing.

In a perfect world, we would close coal completely (that is happening fast anyway), and more towards renewable fuels.  (happening, but could be increased with government incentives)

Reductions in CO2 isn't going to happen unless we come up with efficient ways to capture carbon from the atmosphere.  We can, however, reduce the amount of CO2 that we continue to add.  For now, that will have to do.

So, I'm still wondering when the "industrial era" began and what the average temperature was in the year before that.  Because that's supposed to be the baseline from which we are supposed to be trying not to exceed a 2-degrees Celcius increase.  If that year is 1759, we were in the Little Ice Age, with average temps about 1.5 degrees Celcius below historical norms.  Meaning that we have already blown through the 2-degrees target.

Apparently, the bottom of the Little Ice Age was about the time Jamestown was founded in 1607, with an estimated average global temp of 12.4 degrees C.  That partially explains why about 3/4 of the settlers who came to Jamestown in the 1st 3 years died.

We tend to frame the consequences of further warming in terms of what's good for the United States, or even what's good for the coastal cities of the United States.  Is it a given that sea-level rise is a bad thing for humanity (if humans are the prime consideration)?  I know it's a bad thing for coral and polar bears, but what about humans?  In a warmer climate, does the Sahara get rain, as it has in the geological past, or does it just turn into a bigger desert?  Do Canada's northern prairies and Siberia become agricultural breadbaskets, while Nawlins and Miami try to adapt to being Venice?

Seriously, one of our two political parties pretty much actively:

A.  Denies climate change is a real thing
B.  Says it is natural and normal
C.  Says it is good for the earth and growing seasons
D.  Says that nothing can be done so we'll just have to live with it.

I'd be happy if both parties acknowledged there was a problem, invested in green energy and new technology to help solve the problem, and actively worked to mitigate current carbon outputs.

How much will it cost?  According to the insurance industry, global warming already costs Americans untold billions, and that number is accelerating.  Economists say that we are on the other end of the curve now.  It will cost us more to do nothing.

In a perfect world, we would close coal completely (that is happening fast anyway), and more towards renewable fuels.  (happening, but could be increased with government incentives)

Reductions in CO2 isn't going to happen unless we come up with efficient ways to capture carbon from the atmosphere.  We can, however, reduce the amount of CO2 that we continue to add.  For now, that will have to do.

You've made some very solid points in this discussion, BBTS.
But . . . .
Neither party speaks with unanimity, so A through B are generalizations, albeit reasonable ones.  But neither party is the "party of science."  The same party that believes in climate science also believes that people will turn into angels if we just restructure society the right way.

So nobody's got the scientific high ground across the board.  Both parties invoke science when it supports their position, and both invoke wishful thinking at other times.

And there's this:

According to the insurance industry, global warming already costs Americans untold billions, and that number is accelerating.

If an estimate includes "untold" or "countless" in it, then it's not much good as an estimate.  And "untold" is not a number such that we could tell whether it is accelerating or not.
We had a story on TV news a few days ago.  A 2-year-old boy wandered off from his family's home out in the country.  A search (successful 26 hours later, thankfully) was launched.  The on-the-scene reporter told us about the "countless ponds in the area."  I just shook my head.  The number of ponds in the area might have been 10 or 20, or maybe 100, depending on how big the "area" was, but that number was not "countless."

The same party that believes in climate science also believes that people will turn into angels if we just restructure society the right way.

Libertarians? 

So, I'm still wondering when the "industrial era" began and what the average temperature was in the year before that.  Because that's supposed to be the baseline from which we are supposed to be trying not to exceed a 2-degrees Celcius increase.  If that year is 1759, we were in the Little Ice Age, with average temps about 1.5 degrees Celcius below historical norms.  Meaning that we have already blown through the 2-degrees target.

Apparently, the bottom of the Little Ice Age was about the time Jamestown was founded in 1607, with an estimated average global temp of 12.4 degrees C.  That partially explains why about 3/4 of the settlers who came to Jamestown in the 1st 3 years died.

We tend to frame the consequences of further warming in terms of what's good for the United States, or even what's good for the coastal cities of the United States.  Is it a given that sea-level rise is a bad thing for humanity (if humans are the prime consideration)?  I know it's a bad thing for coral and polar bears, but what about humans?  In a warmer climate, does the Sahara get rain, as it has in the geological past, or does it just turn into a bigger desert?  Do Canada's northern prairies and Siberia become agricultural breadbaskets, while Nawlins and Miami try to adapt to being Venice?

Between 1840 and 1860

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=industrial+era
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=industrial+era Link

One irony in all this is that Europe decided to push Diesel cars circa 1990 to combat CO2 emissions, and as a result are incurring serious problems with regular air pollution now (NOx in particular) in cities.  Nearly every car is Diesel, and the 50 cc 2 stroke scooters are a problem of course.

I saw somewhere that CO2 emissions are off 8% due to COVID and we'd need to replicate that every tear for ten years to meet Paris targets, which as noted above, are not sufficient.  Even the most optimistic rosey future scenario not based on wishful thinking shows "we" are not doing nearly enough.

If nobody can do some kind of cost:benefit analysis on the issue, well, that should tell us something.