> other side saying there is a problem and the only solution is X (which is a tragedy of the commons type solution).
You may want to broaden your sources, I can't imagine how you got the impression of "only solution is X."
There are all sorts of mitigation plans, all sorts of energy transition plans. Nobody know what will work in the end, what new unforeseen technologies will be developed, and how the costs will change as industry scales technologies, so there's a huge variety.
If your X == "stop emitting greenhouse gasses," well, there's tons of ways to do that. Many of which will massively increase economic productivity.
There are occasional large reports that spell out various routes to stop emitting GHG. There are resources like Project Drawdown that investigate these potential of a hundred different climate interventions. There are focused news media like GreenTech Media that focus on technology interventions. There are an abundance of governmental reports on ways to meet our climate goals, on all sorts of particulars, for example I was reading a great one last night about electricity of buildings in California or using renewable natural gas [1].
There's soooo many books, forums, advocacy groups, policy wonks, podcasts, news outlets, etc. focused on exploring what you say you want to hear. So many that it's hard to even suggest a starting point. Imagine if somebody said "I'd be interested in hearing more about computers and the internet," how would you start pointing them to the general resources for something so broad?
That's great to hear. Unfortunately, such perspectives don't seem to make their way to the news sources I generally consume (i.e. TV ads, news.google.com, etc.). The level of exposure I get tends to come across more as doom and gloom: all the icecaps are melting, climate catastrophes everywhere, etc. and so we must force these unwieldy CO2 based policies on the population (and maybe drastically reduce the population and economy). So, I think part of the strategy should be a better PR on the issue. But, maybe the non doom and gloom perspective doesn't sell as well?
You may want to broaden your sources, I can't imagine how you got the impression of "only solution is X."
There are all sorts of mitigation plans, all sorts of energy transition plans. Nobody know what will work in the end, what new unforeseen technologies will be developed, and how the costs will change as industry scales technologies, so there's a huge variety.
If your X == "stop emitting greenhouse gasses," well, there's tons of ways to do that. Many of which will massively increase economic productivity.
There are occasional large reports that spell out various routes to stop emitting GHG. There are resources like Project Drawdown that investigate these potential of a hundred different climate interventions. There are focused news media like GreenTech Media that focus on technology interventions. There are an abundance of governmental reports on ways to meet our climate goals, on all sorts of particulars, for example I was reading a great one last night about electricity of buildings in California or using renewable natural gas [1].
There's soooo many books, forums, advocacy groups, policy wonks, podcasts, news outlets, etc. focused on exploring what you say you want to hear. So many that it's hard to even suggest a starting point. Imagine if somebody said "I'd be interested in hearing more about computers and the internet," how would you start pointing them to the general resources for something so broad?
[1] https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2019publications/CEC-500-2019-055/...