MrMakabar

See how you had to add a bunch of clarifying comments, so if I point at a bunch of existing cap-and-trade systems you’d have to sigh and say “no, this one also sucks”?

EU ETS has no offsets and is well enough run, to bring the price to 62€/t. For some sectors such as the electricity sector that is a significant price. For electricity that roguhly doubles the price for coal and about a 50% increase for gas. It is also enough to make large steel manufacturers invest a lot into hydrogen steel manufacturing.

The “rich” countries need to rebuild back what the poor countries already have.

Rich countries have cleaner electricity grids, thanks to massive investments into renewables(for the most part), large rail systems with high speed rail, rail based urban transport systems even in smaller cities and so forth. The challenge is lowering consumption and well change some infrastructure, but that is not that hard.

Easy ban sale of fossil fuel based heating systems.

So basically they are betting that Trump wins the election and hurts the energy transition, war in the Middle East hits the oil supply, which increases oil prices, EV factory production being too high, due to overinvestment and well solar being a problem in trade wars.

Trump might be solved in a month, the Middle East situation is temporary and a war would accelerate the energy transition as well helping EV manufcaturers thanks to high oil prices or well oil prices fall, which hurts the oil industries profit margin, but is great for the climate. Solar being mostly Chinese is a real problem though.

There are absolutly policies, which are in effect enabling degrowth. For one things like a well run cap and trade system(no offsets) for emissions, working hour limits and other worker protections, public health care to take out risks of working less, earlier retirment for workers, enabling sharing of resources with liberaries, public transport and so forth, and quite a few more. Sitting back and relaxing is certainly a viable path, but it is not like politics can not pay its part.

Also for the last point, the key metric is per capita income. An Indian billionaire is just way worse for the climate then an English bus driver. The narrative should be from rich to poor no matter what and the middle just transitions to green energy. You get a lot of problems, when using the West vs rest of the world. For example China and the EU have pretty similar per capita emissions today.

CO2 emissions of the world excluding China have declined. Chinas emissions did fall in Q2 of this year.

Seriously China has economic trouble, which slows down energy demand growth. The US has run the massive inflation reduction act, which seems to be working somewhat well and Europe was hit hard by the energy crisis reducing emissions in the EU through lower consumption and faster green roll out and Russia as its fossil fuel exports fall. On top of that green technologies like solar panels, wind trubines, electric vehicles, heat pumps and so forth become cheaper all the time. It is certainly possible that we can achieve peak emissions soon.

There are some. Plaid Cymru has net zero until 2035 in the manifesto for example. The Finnish Greens even go for carbon neutral by 2030. There are probably more, which in effect would end up in a similar situation. After all the current EU emission target would be a 41% reduction by 2030(55% reduction by 2030) compared to 2022.

This current one is very much including countries outside of the US and Green Parties have been and actually are in government in a number of countries. Also those parties are mostly not Russia friendly at all.

That is pretty much the agenda of every Green party anywhere. With the last point usually taking a decade or so, but still.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_party

What would make a "bold climate agenda"?

There is an easy fix for that: Blaim the rich

They are planning to buy or maybe just electricity from a new reactor type, which has never been built, starting 2030, when conventional nuclear power plants, with known technology take twice as long to built.

So if they stop the project in 18months, it has just been a waste of money.

Fossil fuel has actually pretty high fixed production costs. The best example was Texan oil going negative during covid. So with a fast deployment of renewables replacing fossil fuels, we will see periods of fossil fuels being cheap, as renewables replaced enough of them to see oversupply. However low prices also force production to be cut, partly by companies going bankrupt. Once enough has been cut prices are going up again.

Right now we see a number of OPEC+ countries breaking production limits. Namely Russia, Iraq and Kazakhstan. The Saudis see Iran heading towards a war with Israel and the Saudis want to hurt Iran. So the Saudis threaten increased oil production to hurt Iran's economy. That would also hurt fracking producers in the US, which would also benefit the Saudis.