The COP26 conference on climate change has just ended, and the results were mixed. On the positive side, a large majority of people around the world, particularly the young generation, are fully convinced that climate change is a big problem and that it must be seriously addressed now. And on the ground, a number of governments have pledged to make a series of efforts: To reach “net zero” greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, 2060 or 2070; “phase down” coal (close coal-fired power plants within a decade or two); stop deforestation by 2030 (although even that is not fast enough); and other small steps. On the negative side, however, I think there has been too much focus on goals and target dates, and too little on the paths and scenarios that will get us there. Indeed, it is not enough for a country to announce, say, 2060 as its target date for net zero emissions; what is needed is a clear plan to achieve that. And judging from the media coverage that has accompanied COP26, I think most people still do not understand the most (and least) effective ways that will help us solve the problem (to a significant degree). So how can we do that? My simple advice to everyone is: Read Bill Gates’ recent book, “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.” In it, he deconstructs the problem, explaining climate change clearly and documenting what a disaster it is now and how much bigger it will soon be, why we need net zero as soon as possible (although 2030 is not feasible), what areas of human activity (industry, transportation, energy, agriculture, etc.) are most impactful, and what to do about each. One important idea that Gates stresses is that we must be cognizant of the needs of developing countries in terms of energy and food production, building and infrastructure, etc. Thus, we cannot expect developing countries to cut down on emissions as much as rich countries and we need to compensate rising countries for the efforts and sacrifices they will make. It is important to understand the reason for the problem we are facing: Fossil fuels are so widely used because they are abundant, powerful, very cheap and easy to move. For almost a century now, we have developed whole industries for drilling, processing and moving them. Conversely, renewable and clean energies are still expensive and inefficient. For example, compared to fossil fuels, nuclear and solar energies are (at least now) five to 10 times less efficient; other energies (wind, hydrothermal, etc.) are even less potent. So the first lesson to learn is the need to develop effective energy production technologies: Solar power, safe nuclear (including small reactors for big ships), electric batteries for cars and buses, etc. Speaking of transportation, contrary to what one gets from the media (“why does so and so use private jets?”), it is not the main source of global warming. It is so in the US (Americans fly and drive a lot), but not for the whole world. In fact, transportation contributes only 16 percent of global greenhouse gases, far behind industrial emissions (31 percent) and electricity production (27 percent). Even agriculture, particularly meat production (cow methane emissions), contributes 19 percent of greenhouse gases. This is mainly why, in 2020, when the pandemic wiped out 90 percent of flights, greenhouse gas emissions dropped by only 5 percent. Clean transportation, especially in cities, can certainly help to reduce both global warming and the pollution in the air we breathe. Indeed, many cities are now using electric buses, which can run for a few hours, then get charged again. And if gasoline is expensive (as in Europe), the “green premium” for going electric is very low, perhaps reaching zero, thus encouraging people to adopt it. In Europe, electric cars are already a good alternative for people who drive mostly around the city (not far and not for too long). Flying and shipping are more complicated, and we need to develop technologies for those: Alternative but efficient and clean fuels for planes, nuclear power for big ships, or other solutions. Additionally, we need to use video conferences more extensively to reduce the number of trips. The biggest difficulty in getting to net zero is not in the transportation sector, it is in industry and electricity production. Gates says that when someone tells him they have a plan for the climate change problem, he asks them: “What’s your solution for cement?” By “cement,” he means “industry,” where we have not found a way to produce cement, steel and plastic without filling the atmosphere with tons (or rather billions of tons) of carbon dioxide and other bad gases. Likewise for the power plants that produce electricity, which are still hugely needed in many parts of the world. To sum up, if we are going to properly address climate change, we must understand the specifics of the problem and the possible realistic solutions in each case. We need new technologies (better solar panels, better electric car batteries, better industrial processes, etc.) and effective policies (carbon tax, green subsidies, etc.). And we need clear, detailed governmental plans. The rest is just rhetoric.