A lot of those "fossil fuels subsidies" are the same tax benefits available to any company.

Meanwhile, at least in the US, alternative energy, is subsidized many different ways, not the least of which is by not being required to pay to keep the grid stable when the alternative energy is not available.

In other words, the electric grid needs two things from generators: power, and capacity to provide power on demand. Wind and solar provide only the first. But when they provide it, they do so at very low marginal cost, driving other producers out of business. But the grid needs those other plants to produce power when the alternative (i.e. unreliable) sources do not produce.

Our society is built, necessarily, on reliable electric power. If we lose that, it will cost us immeasurably.

Solar and wind power are absolutely not better than any fossil fuel. Nobody would ever put them in the electric grid if it were not for the fear of CO2 emissions - at least, they wouldn't go into the grid in significant levels, for reasons stated above.

People love wind and solar for four reasons:

(1) Since the "fuel" is free, they imagine the sources are cheap. BUT... that's when LCOE is used to measure the cost - a common measure but one that ignores the cost to the grid of unreliable power, or the cost to make it reliable, or the cost to transmit the energy from where you can harvest it to where it is needed. Measure it correctly and wind and solar are quite expensive.

(2) They don't live where the wind farms will be (I've been to wind farms - ugh).

(3) They have not studied the power grid and do not understand the enormous cost of integrating "renewables."

(4) They have not read the reports showing how world production of critical materials - often from slave areas - must grow dramatically and amazingly quickly.

And, the idea that grid level batteries will save us is a fantasy. No proven technology yet can handle loss of renewable energy for more than a few minutes to an hour, and they do this at vast cost. Batteries are unlikely to solve the problem, unless an unproven technology (perhaps flow batteries) somehow does the job. But this is going to be incredibly expensive.

You can come up with all the complex models you want, but they are not going to give you a reliable electric grid. Not with technology that exists.

Now, if the US cuts its carbon emissions to zero, by the IPCC models, the change in temperature by 2200 will be within the error level of measurement - i.e. negligible.

Ask China to cut its emissions? Hah - they are building coal plants rapidly. The one thing they may do that would cut emissions is go global. But the main thing they do is move the environmentally damaging production of major parts of renewables out of sight of US environmentalists.

If you are really serious, go for factory built, modular, nuclear reactors. They are both extremely clean, and extremely reliable. And, we have 50 years of experience with that technology.

And the other thing that makes sense is looking at what it costs to adapt to a warming world. The best evidence is that it is a lot less expensive than a futile quest to convert to wind and solar.

The seas have been rising since the last solar minimum 400 years ago. People have adapted. If they rise a little faster, adapt a little faster.

Temperatures have been as high 100 years ago as they are now. But if they go up a bit, adapt.