Let's start with some facts on global carbon emissions.  There have been international agreements for decades (from Kyoto to Paris) that focus heavily on emissions targets but haven't translated to substantial action in reducing overall global carbon dioxide output.  That's not to say there has been no progress, but since the Kyoto protocol, man-made global emissions have increased over 60% and are trending even higher.  Estimates for the use of fossil fuels globally show an increase for at least the next 30 years.

There has been a massive push of industrialization the last three decades that has driven the carbon emissions increases.  The underlying prerequisite for this scale of industrialization is affordable, efficient, scalable, and secure energy sources.  In most cases, this has been hydrocarbons.

The conversation on climate change action has become highly politicized and strayed a long way from reality.  There are political leaders, media, and climate advocates portraying a world in dire straits, calling climate change an emergency.  This amounts to fear-mongering and has led to the rise of groups like Extinction Rebellion and teenagers suing governments over "climate anxiety" and inaction.  There are prescriptions for population control, people not having children, and others targeting groups or companies and accusing them of ecocide.  The philosophies driving these viewpoints are highly deterministic and usually anti-humanist.  The continued rise of this misguided thinking is driven by fear, not science, and it has the potential to get dangerous the more mainstream it becomes.

One extreme example is the group Extinction Rebellion calling for rapid decarbonization to net zero by 2025.  This approach would impoverish and cast aside billions of people globally.  The group fails to mention the uprisings, riots, starvation, displacement, and inevitable global conflict that would arise from such a draconian enforcement of energy poverty.  It is absolute lunacy that normally wouldn't be given a second thought.  However, in today's public debate, we have mainstream political parties supporting such groups and many more activists lining up behind. 

Rapid decarbonization globally without economically viable alternatives is absurd and fundamentally immoral.  Energy affordability and security are fundamental to advanced economies and required for industrialization.  Without a miracle, attempts to rapidly decarbonize will inevitably reduce affordability and increase energy poverty.  We have some capacity in the First World to absorb some increased costs to promote efficiency and technological innovation, but the developing world does not.

To understand the scale of transition required to reach net zero by 2050, Roger Pielke, Jr.(one of the most cited UN-IPCC contributors) calculated that it would require a new nuclear power plant every day from now until 2050, with corresponding reductions in CO2-emitting energy sources.  He wrote this a couple months ago, so we are already about 60 fully functional nuclear power plants behind.  How much closer will we be in six months?

The simple fact is that no major shift to a green economy, or major transition from fossil fuels will occur globally until economically advantageous alternatives exist.  Can we acknowledge that we aren't going to hit our targets?  The developing world is not going to sacrifice energy affordability or security any time soon.

Overall, humanity's experience over the last 100 years has been advancement and progress.  The progress, particularly the last 30 years, is the miracle, we shouldn't discount the lessons.

There has been a complete flip in global poverty over the last century.  Today's middle class enjoys luxuries unimaginable 100 years ago.  Nearly 1 billion people have risen from extreme poverty in just the last 20 years.  For the first time in human history, over half the global population is now middle-class.

Prosperous societies are better equipped to deal with extreme and challenging situations, including weather events.  A recent global study published in Global Environmental Change highlights this: "The more a country is developed the higher are the investments in protection measures to natural hazards, early warning systems, and disaster risk management strategies."

There has been a steady reduction in catastrophic losses from climate events over the last 30 years.  Another remarkable statistic is that over the last 100 years, climate-related deaths have decreased 95% while the global population quadrupled.  It is no coincidence that such advancements have been made as more of the world industrializes and builds economic capacity.

These remarkable developments support the hypothesis of the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC).  The hypothesis is the "idea that as an economy develops, market forces begin to increase and economic inequality decreases.  More specifically that as the economy grows, initially the environment suffers but eventually the relationship between the environment and the society improves."  Evidence seems that on a macro scale, the above progress supports this.

There are currently over 7.5 billion people, and we can expect the population to reach 12–15 billion in the next several generations.  Fear-mongering, climate theatrics, and target fixation aren't an answer to prepare for a successful future.   Rational conversations on adaptation, efficiency, affordability, and the promotion of prosperity driven initiatives is what's needed.

Advancing and liberalizing trade and rapidly reducing energy poverty globally are needed.  Developed countries should continue to develop, innovate, and export affordable energy options and technology.  Whether it's climate change or some other future challenge, having the economic capacity to deal with it provides humanity the best chance to handle it.