Your article could be retitled, "How to appease The Economy and continue growth with less CO2".

If gasoline prices were reduced greatly (as to $0.50/gal, as mentioned in the David Wallace Wells quote), what would happen to its consumption rate? It would skyrocket: People would be driving and flying everywhere, and the incentive to lessen consumption (read: burning fossil fuels) would decrease. It is a non-point that he makes, which you then endorse.

And rather than completely end the technological abuse imposed upon Nature (which includes humanity), the pitch by yourself and others is for generation of electricity without hydrocarbons, leaving us only deceived to think we'd then be better off.

But "green energy" will allow for continued artificial night lighting, which counteracts evolution of everything on Earth, disrupting human Circadian rhythm and bird migrations and insect movements and the hunting patterns of many species. If you solve only for the serious problem of CO2 emissions causing climate change, you leave screen addiction and global virus-spreading and cultural homogenization and deforestation and biodiversity loss and human overpopulation and the induced conformity of mankind to the demands of the technological system, all of which will continue apace.

Do we really benefit to enable a Big Brother total surveillance state (as in China), or dystopian Brave New World with lethal Boston Dynamics robodog patrols, if they are simply powered by limitless solar- and wind-generated electricity? Of course not.

Your target is completely mistaken; we need not focus and work on how to continue the disaster of the techno-industrial society, but how to end it as soon as possible. The human psyche needs to not be deprived of Nature, and both our bodies and minds need to express our evolced nature, all of which is impeded by continued advancement of technology (toward its own autonomy).

"The industrial revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race."