“ Of course, the US and other energy wasteful countries of the global North need to reduce their energy consumption with significant improvements in quality of life.” Where do you get “Of course” from?

This sentence makes no sense at all: in a warming world, we will need less heating, but a lot more Air-conditioning, so electricity requirements will go up. The idea that reducing energy usage will lead to “significant improvements in quality of life” is complete nonsense: ask people in the third world how much they enjoy their low-energy economy. The other word for reduced energy consumption is “Poverty.”

Most of your assertions are equally lacking in logic, for instance, “Climate mitigation by carbon sequestration” “to bring the atmospheric carbon dioxide level down below 350 ppm”. Who says 350 ppm is a desirable target? We know that Carbon fertilisation has increased the growth of plant (both crops and forests) by 14% over the last 30 years. This is a benefit to both humanity and nature: why would we want to roll it back? 60 million years ago the Earth swarmed with natural life at over 1000 ppm CO2. As far as I know, the plants and Dinosaurs did not complain, and this level was 100% natural, as humanity did not yet exist. Justify the magic number of 350 ppm, if you can. The evidence is clear that more CO2 in the atmosphere is beneficial, not harmful, or at least the benefits far outweigh the theoretical, and unproven harmful effects.

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/10/benefits1.pdf

You don’t even mention the biggest flaw in the move to renewables: if your entire economy is powered by wind and sun, how do you keep the lights on when it is still and dark? The answer of course is batteries, and we don’t yet have a cost-effective way of storing electricity from solar power so it can be used at night. Current battery technology is inefficient, even the best Li-Ion batteries returning only 80% of the power used to charge the battery, and as everyone with a Laptop knows, they have a limited life, having to be replaced every 3 years.

The solution is obvious, but you have to think outside the square: the perfect solar battery is 100% natural, not a human artifact. Earth itself converts Solar energy by photosynthesis and stores it as wood. For higher energy density and long-term storage it processes the plant matter into nature’s own Solar Battery: Coal! We release the energy in a clean-burning power station fitted with filters and catalytic converters, so that only CO2 and water vapour are released into the atmosphere, completing the Carbon cycle interrupted by its storage as a Solar Battery. In doing so we restore part of the Natural level of CO2 that once existed on Earth. We have to do this, both to utilise the stored energy, and to battle the on-going carbon sequestration (through fossil fuel creation) that is denying nature the Carbon it needs as the building blocks of all life.

Your target of 100% renewables is not only impractical, it is unnecessary, and harmful to the natural world.

I work in IT, Community volunteer interested in Politics, support Capitalism as the best economic system for lifting people out of poverty, Skeptical scientist.