Cut that 1% by prohibiting most polluting activities of these people, would cut at maximum 16% of global emission, as stated in the article.
As that's a one-time move, emissions will continue to grow, it will just give some month at best.
Monthly fee for everyone or you mean freemium?
Freemium in my opinion wont be enough to cover the cost, because works well only with services with low cost per-user.
And monthly fee for everyone is a very hight incentive of not using YouTube.
I've tried time ago but it seems to take the results and nothing else (I mean, no summary on top of the results, no table with restaurant number/time of opening ecc..)
-> I don't know how to call this
You need a schedulable power source if you want to fully replace carbon.
A lot of batteries with super high capacity (that may exists in the future) could stabilize solar enough, and a lot of solar arrays may give enough power, but in summers you you will be forced to throw away some of the energy, which is a big waste.
And this is an hypothetical scenario, nuclear is a technology that already exists, we could have decarbonised decades ago using nuclear.
-> Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that we should rely on nuclear power alone, but we should first cover the base energy load with nuclear, then use solar and wind for the rest
People waiting for the bus stop to arrive, inside a bus