>

Sadly, it's not. What we're instead doing is half-mixtures with technology that is itself prone to disruption by climate change... as Europe has spent the last four years learning the hard way.
Edit: If you're curious about how, see my next comment.
Isn't this like putting a fox in charge of guarding the chickens? >

I mean, after 27 of these already and absolutely zero action, I’m not sure anyone attending isn’t a fox >

It’s foxes all the way down >

We’re the hens >

Then why do they keep laying eggs? >

that's only oniony if you think that any of the petro states are playing a straight game.
which they're not. at all. like, more so than any other country in the assembly, and that bar is astonishingly low already. >

The only straight game in world politics is most of us don’t like anyone else enough to want to be responsible for anyone else no matter what resources they might bring to the table. >

“No, no, everyone. Everyone, hear me out…what if burning more fossil fuel is the answer to your imaginary climate crisis?” >

There was a serious proposal to do exactly that back in the early 2000s.
The proposal is based on the fact that more rapid heating, with all of the increased water vapor in the air, will result in an ice age setting in sooner than natural. The goal is to cause that to start as soon as possible, then use the ice age to fix our reliance upon fossil fuels without worries about the long-term effects of too much heat.
Strangely enough, it's still a viable solution. Just, well... it should be obvious why no one is considering it. >

That is not the least bit surprising. It also appears to be the very plan we are implementing at the moment.