I really don't know why, but I've got a question.
Is there a scientific case which can be made that developed society can continue to live like we do, except with wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars and trucks?

2. Can anyone explain how that system and those actions will result in a habitable planet, with reducing carbon in the atmosphere, and sufficient topsoil and fresh water to serve humankind's needs, over (picking a number) the next hundred years?

3. This really matters. I know I'm a nag, but...
Everybody who is anybody agrees that "climate action" is defined as wind turbines, solar panels, and electric cars, with other technological solutions as they come to be invented.
So, say we do that.
How does it work?

4. No person has ever explained to me how, if we implemented that plan of action 100% without reservation, it would attain our requirements.
If the whole plan doesn't solve the problem, by what rationale is part of the plan "a step in the right direction"?

5. I'm not asking whether that plan would ever result in "net zero" emissions. I'm asking, say it does - which I don't for a minute believe, but say it works, net zero emissions - how does that result in a non-collapsing ecosystem? Topsoil, water, pollinators, all that stuff?

6. This matters.
If the explanation I ask for doesn't exist - and if it does, why won't anyone spell it out for me? - if it doesn't exist, but what justification do we permit out leaders to tell us that is the action they are going to take on our behalf?

7. I'm not even worried about whether we will do it. It's like running the wrong way with the football. Like a drowning man swimming away from shore. Might as well just drown where he is.

8. What, exactly, is the point of building a humongous global infrastructure to address some small portion of our doom?
Or, maybe I'm wrong.
Somebody explain how building the Green New Deal saves the ecosystem. Because half of all the life on Earth has died since I was 25.