[Skeptic]

Simple said :

We have to dare to think differently and cooperatively in a way that profiteering and personal fortune is taken out of the equation.

That approach is instantly doomed to failure. People do not want to make big financial sacrifices. They will make small one - such as paying a wee bit more for green electricity. But they will resist mightily anything that has a substantial effect in reducing standard of living.

If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, you have to find ways that permit the continuance of high standard sof living. This can be done. It will take a few decades. However, as I pointed out, those 3 to 4 decades can continue burning gas and oil, since that resouce will be burned anyway. Over that period, we develop methods that do not require coal. Here are a couple of examples.

Biofuels from cellulose. Long term, ethanol derived from corn and sugar cane will not be enough, and will result in more deforestation to get more such crop land. However, we can genetically engineer micro-organisms to make cellulose digesting enzymes, producing sugars for ethanol. Since cellulose can be obtained from almost any plant crop in large amounts, that is a much better solution.

New generation nuclear power. Already we have a new design reactor (Uranium pebble bed) which literally cannot go into melt-down. Better methods of handling nuclear waste. Nuclear can provide all the electricity an energy hungry world needs for at least the next 1000 years. We will have to extract Uranium from lower purity ores. However, the trend to extraction from lower purity is a long term development in all mining sectors. There is enough fuel for 1000 years.

I could go on. The long term 'solution' to CO2 emissions is NOT some kind of mass sacrifice and rejection of economic development. We have much better options.