AOC says the world will end in 12 years if we don't address climate change

[Ban my account ffs!]

Statement like hers only hurt the climate change action message.  One sure way to drive away nearly anybody who thinks climate change is a problem but doesn't think about it much... is to tell them if they don't up and change everything about their lifestyle right now, the world is gonna end in 12 years.  

Also, you need to point to evidence that is not sensationalist or easy to poke holes in, no matter how wrong those counter-arguments might be.  The endangered Pacific nations are a good example.

Many of these low Pacific atolls are stuck between sinking land and rising seas.  They are pumping too much ground water due to overpopulation.  The lense of fresh water that sits on top of the salt water under the land gets depleted and begins to turn brackish and the land subsides.  On top of that, warmer oceans lead to thermal expansion which causes sea level rise.  What is easier for these island nations?  Convincing Americans, Chinese, Russians, Indians, and Brazilians to dramatically curtail greenhouse gas emissions?  Or find sustainable water sources?  

Ultimately this is about something bad happening to the land these people live on, and their seeking a scapegoat to deflect responsibility for a problem that is half their own fault.  Even so, wealthy nations have a responsibility to help these nations cope.  Providing funding for rainwater collection and filtration to reduce ground water pumping is a no-brainer.

As for this idea that there are these "tipping points" always 10-15 years in the future if we don't do something NOW and that the politically arrived at temperature increase limit represents some unholy number that if you cross it, the whole thing goes straight to hell... is all just activists at lavish conferences negotiating science.

Then there is the issue of power production:

We will *never* power our economy with windmills and solar panels.  Ever.  They are supplementary and not reliable.  When wind power becomes a significant source of electricity, one storm or one calm spell is enough to black out the grid.  And don't give me "but BATTERIES" or "but IMPROVEMENTS"... yes... this is true.  Still doesn't matter.  We need a non-carbon based base energy source that isn't dependent on the weather.

[Ban my account ffs!]

We will *never* power our economy with windmills and solar panels.  Ever.  They are supplementary and not reliable.  When wind power becomes a significant source of electricity, one storm or one calm spell is enough to black out the grid.  And don't give me "but BATTERIES" or "but IMPROVEMENTS"... yes... this is true.  Still doesn't matter.  We need a non-carbon based base energy source that isn't dependent on the weather.

That's nuclear for you. Though you're actually wrong about the weather-based renewables. What we would need for them to work is a common hemispheric power grid, connecting all the sources to each other. There is always enough wind/sun SOMEWHERE to power the world, so it's all about linking as much together as possible to use as insurance when there isn't enough power somewhere.

The latter isn't feasible right now.  A *lot* of electricity is lost in transmission over long distances which is why we tend to build power plants all over the place (power plants that can produce 24/7).  Wyoming, sparsely populated and close to power sources, loses only 2.2% of its electricity between the power plant and the plug.  But Idaho loses 13.3%.

With a system like you propose losses would be much larger than that.  You also must factor in that places like the eastern 1/3 of the U.S. have low wind and solar potential.

Wind power works well on the plains and solar in the SW.  Electricity utilities are building their grids accordingly.  Minnesota gets 18% of its electricity from wind and 25% from renewables overall.  23% comes from nuclear.  So nearly half of electricity production is low-carbon.  Utilities cut emissions 27% in the last 12 years and wind is now the cheapest form of electricity at $45 MWh compared to $49 for gas and $66 for coal (and $75 for solar).  But wind is not this cheap in most of the populated areas of the country. 

It is important to realize that economies are like water... they have a habit of finding the path of least resistance.  If we take national action to combat climate change, we'll just outsource our carbon emissions.  If we prevent that with policy, the cost will be passed downwards onto the poorest.  If we prevent that with policy, we will just outsource large bank accounts.  If we prevent that with policy, we'll outsource some wealthy people.  At some point, we'll just end up outsourcing our freedoms and liberties to an angry mob or an angry man with a big gun.  You have to look at this through a lens of realpolitik.  There is action being taken against climate change.  But it is mostly still in the innovation stages.  Our ability to reduce emissions will be low and slow until it rapidly increases and becomes so cheap you'd be an idiot not to.

I think with the collective of human action, we'll do it before the heat is on.  And if the heat really is on, we'll find a solution there too (Not a stratoshield, Harry... SO2 in the stratosphere is poorly understood and would have tremendous unintended negative consequences)