I suppose this wild eyed optimistic scenario will be coupled with rhetoric about covering 50% of the world's land area with wilderness industrialized for solar farms and and wind industrial parks.

How's that working out?

Here's a clue: "By 2035" almost half of the world's solar and wind junk now covering vast areas of ruined land will be landfill bait.

I'm an old man. I lived through "by 1985," "by 1995," "by 2005," "by 2015," and most recently "by 2025."

Here we are; the worst rate of emissions ever observed not "by 2025" but in 2025.

The whole time, through all these "by xxx5,"
I observed antinukes gloating about how they prevented nuclear energy from doing what it might have done by caterwauling about how great so called "renewable energy" is.

They gloat still. "Nuclear energy will not save the world," they say. Right they are on their own doing. They're thrilled with their dubious success at killing the last, best, hope of the human race.

The crocodile tears are unimpressive.

Interestingly, this reactionary pose, making energy supplies depend on increasingly unstable weather, mining, and rendering vast stretches of wilderness into industrial parks, was never addressed at attacking fossil fuels. It was always about attacking nuclear energy. That of course represents its only success. It is, again, now too late for nuclear to do what it might have done.

The die is cast. Dumping responsibility on the future is an old, tiresome, and, frankly, a wholly immoral dodge.

As Lady Macbeth put it in the play after having participated in a murder, "What's done cannot be undone."

Perhaps even better, from Goethe's Faust, " Welch erbarmlich Grauen fasst Ubermenchen dich!"

Welch Grauen indeed!

Consider me unimpressed with the rhetoric.

here is the proof
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/