It would be, but it isn't right now. Getting from here to there takes time, and as you replace fossil fuel capacity with renewables, you have to still keep the not yet replaced capacity running. Non-renewable capacity consists of deposits that get exhausted and have to be continuously replaced with new ones. So until we can replace fossil fuels faster than existing sources get depleted, new extraction sites will have to be built.
It keeps taking longer because we keep enabling the highly profitable fossil fuel extraction instead of making the singeing energy cuts and investments in other sources (renewables and nuclear) that we should have made decades ago.
Abrupt and large scale transitions will be an economic shock, bt will not 'crash the economy and kill off most of the population' as you aver. The climatological models are far, far more robust than the economic models we use, and suggesting that an abrupt transition away from fossil fuels is going to kill off most of the population is simple scaremongering. If you actually believe this, then I would like to gently suggest that You've Been Had.
> Abrupt and large scale transitions will be an economic shock, bt will not 'crash the economy
Abrupt enough will, and my point is that we can only go as abrupt as possible without crashing the economy, because crashing the economy is immediate game over (climate change is only a pressing problem because it might eventually break our economy through war and resource pressure).
> suggesting that an abrupt transition away from fossil fuels is going to kill off most of the population is simple scaremongering
Well, I'm looking at how the world works today - how we've concentrated most people in dense cities, and how those people (meaning, us) can be fed only through a highly mechanized and fossil-dependent infrastructure. Oh, and through electricity and supply chains and GPS too. And, we have nuclear weapons now. It's not a matter if an abrupt transition can kill most of the population, it's only a question of how abrupt can we go without that happening.
This is at least a shift from your earlier position. At this rate, we might be able to take action when we have closed only half the remaining distance to the iceberg.
I don't believe my position has shifted, I think I've only failed at communicating it.
I can't tell you how big a shock the economy will survive, only that it has to survive, so whatever shock we apply it must be less than the lethal dose. Killing the economy is literally the game over, because climate change isn't about climate for climate's sake, but about climate not killing our economies and civilization through the pressure of increasing uninhabitability.
