Can you post a link to your favorite 3 of those plans?
I'll do you better than that. This one was up and running in Australia and actually beginning to work until it was shut down and all the scientists at CSIRO fired and entire sections of the best climate and oceanic scientists of the world scattered to the winds. [
1]That'll teach em to actually succeed.
1)
FARMING A
CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTION
This next one is similar, but differs in that it doesn't contain a carbon market necessarily. It bases the motivation to implement the changes to be purely the additional benefits to economies, profits and increases to both primary and agricultural yields and the quality of life that bolsters. So it doesn't even necessarily need any government intervention at all in many cases, except just getting out of the way and letting it happen. In other countries it could need assistance from the government, but mostly in simply education. Teach them how to do it, then just let them do it! The politics is in just removing institutional and governmental barriers. Its downfall is that it is almost too easy and too much like a silver bullet, but requires literally almost every country in the world to agree to this management style on the majority of their land. That's fairly unlikely. Even when any action proven beneficial there will be significant pushback whenever we try to get cooperation from everyone. It's just human nature. And already here there has been significant pushback.
2)
RESTORING THE CLIMATE THROUGH CAPTURE
AND STORAGE OF SOIL CARBON THROUGH
HOLISTIC PLANNED GRAZING
I really like some parts of this next one, and think certain other parts require an overly burdensome governmental oversight. But in general it is more comprehensive on the energy side, and less extensive on the sequestration side. It probably contains the least change overall because almost everything gets tweaked a little, but nothing completely eliminated. I just personally chaff at governments dictating so minutely into every detail of our lives, but I must say this one has probably the best chances so far. No doubt it is by far the most comprehensive plan.
3)
Drawdown
The next one is a bill in Congress right now, and like the Green New Deal only applies to USA. It has the advantage of bipartisan sponsorship and support. It has the disadvantage of the same sort of socialist idealism infecting the plan as the Green New Deal, just more subtly. It basically sets up a carbon fee and dividend, with carbon sources paying a fee that gets pooled and then split equally by everyone in the country regardless of merit. All that would need to happen is change where the dividend gets paid, (those actually balancing the carbon cycle) and it would be brilliant bill. As it stands though it is still at least workable and at least doesn't grow government, being net zero revenue. Not my favorite, and not comprehensive, but a gazillion times better than the Green New Deal. It's a good start I guess. I personally think they saw what happened to the Aussies and took the wrong lesson from it.
4)
Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act
The IPCC plan is pretty good actually. Fairly comprehensive and certainly science backed. It has the advantage of the most worldwide political support. Unfortunately to get that support I believe several important needs were fairly heavily diluted by compromise though. So rather than reversing AGW it can only mitigate and adapt to AGW. World civilization survives though, so the plan is good in that respect.
5)
Adaptation and Mitigation
Then there is my own personal favorite as it pulls the best from all of these and leaves out the parts I personally don't think help. However, I could be somewhat biased in that assessment.
Seeing as how this is my own plan!
6)
Can we reverse global warming?
I promised you six and I gave you six. There are even more out there though. Maybe the best runner up involves a very large investment in Nuclear energy and multiple small scale hydroelectric plants at the "mill pond" scale rather than the huge mega hydroelectric we are used to, and a relatively smaller investment in solar, wind and geothermal. Nuclear being the large scale base load and the smaller localized renewables filling in the edges where applicable.
