Cost isn't the issue. It's physics. The paper isn't about economics, it's about the physics, the science. And what they found is that claiming that renewables will do anything at all for atmospheric CO2 concentration is, well, as false a statement as anyone can make.

The study including looking at deploying solar and wind world-wide with the most advanced versions of these technologies. They determined that not only would this not stop atmospheric CO2 concentration increases, it would continue to rise exponentially.

Arguing for solar and wind to "save the planet" is the equivalent of being an anti-vaxer and not taking a vaccine in the face of a global pandemic. Even worse than that, it's like believing that drinking bleach will battle the virus. In other words, if you do the math, the real science, it is complete nonsense. The idea simply isn't supported by the scientific realities of the matter.

On the other items.

Yes, container ships burn bunker fuel, perhaps the nastiest stuff you can burn. It's amazing to me that politicians wage battles against straws and NOBODY talks about bunker fuel. It goes to show you that the only things that matter at the political matter are simple messages for simple-minded voters who can keep the politicians floating this nonsense in office through their easy-to-buy votes. Once you detach from ideology the whole thing looks like a big huge stinking mess.

> There's no silver bullet, and we need urgent action on many fronts. But things will be worse if we simply despair and do nothing.

I would put it differently.

First, we need to stop thinking we have the ability to control a planetary-scale problem. We cannot do it. At all. Even if we left the planet --all seven billion of us-- it would take about 50,000 years for atmospheric CO2 to come down by 100 ppm.

These X prizes are neat and all, but, in this case, they are far more likely to be marketing opportunities for those getting behind them than anything else. If they are even mildly intelligent they likely know the score. Nobody is going to win any of these prizes unless there's marketing value --rather than a scientifically sound actual solution.

Driving our limitation are things like the principle of conservation of energy. Put in relevant terms: We can't fix a mess with less energy than that which went into creating it.

We have people claiming we can reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm in just 50 years. That is a thousand times faster than the natural rate of change. I am not sure we have the energy and resources needed to make something like that happen, even if it were possible. The whole thing is almost laughable.

I urge you to get on Amazon and order a CO2 meter. Then go around taking reading. What you will learn will astound you. In a nutshell, we have been living in 600 to 1,000 ppm CO2 environments, likely for centuries. The ~400 ppm number quoted by those pushing a sky is falling narrative are average atmospheric readings at who knows what location and altitude. Measure CO2 in your home, apartment and office. Measure it at your neighbors and friends. You will most-definitely be surprised. And then, the question you should ask is simple: We have been living in high CO2 ppm environments all of our lives...the sky has not fallen and people have not turned into mush. Why are we being misled?