The solution is stupid. If search is the problem, then break up search. Like literally fragment the company into a bunch of copies of itself so it is forced to compete against itself. And invalidate all patents the company has so none of the "children" own those either. Have some other safeguards so they don't just form back together in 10 years (or 50, or whatever, see the "Baby Bells" and such).

Competition is what causes good things in Capitalism. Don't just take away the way they're abusing something (Chrome), or give geographic monopolies (see Baby Bells above) but fragment the company itself, so you re-introduce real competition. Similar with Microsoft: breakup should have meant two (or more) companies distributing competing versions of Windows, not Windows vs Office vs whatever.

Honestly that could be an interesting pre-remedy: if you are subject to an antitrust verdict (not accusation, but conviction), all of your patents are invalidated, and all license agreements you are engaged in (i.e. patent owned by employee, but exclusively licensed to the company) are terminated. Make them afraid of losing their IP profile forever.

Anyways, that's a bunch of things thrown at the wall. I doubt they'll do any. But breaking off monopolistic pieces from the whole isn't the solution. Getting former parts of the company to compete in the same spaces is the problem.

Assuming I even agreed, why would the UN be considered a trustworthy body for this? Right now, at this moment on the UN Human Rights Council are China, Cuba, and at least a few other places with "questionable" practices.

The UN is a dictator's club. Democratic (or even close-ish) countries should separate from it. They have nothing resembling ethics or morals by any standard I would recognize. It's a farce, and while good people work there for some good purposes, it offers a veneer of legitimacy to many MANY horrific acts.

And it's undemocratic in the extreme (assuming that's an ideal). No representation by population.

Exactly. And those are usually laws that are in violation of the higher law of the Constitution. It defines the maximum scope of laws.

"But even so, it's not costly to get close." You're actually proving my point. Unless you get that last 2%, the costs of everything else is still just "extra, could have been spent on better FF cleanliness/ethics/whatever." When you're in those 2% times, you either have the gas plant, or you have rolling blackouts. That should never be acceptable. That some consider it is shows the level of delusion.

Or just nuclear. Fission. Fusion (go Helion!). Thorium fission. Whatever. The amount spent on those "green" renewables (not so green on Total cost of ownership) boondoggles could have utterly solved the problem of carbon-free energy. Heck, it HAS BEEN SOLVED 70 years ago, but then administration got in the way to kill it.

No, I do not think "everyone understands that this is what they mean." I think that too many people believe that you can have all-renewable grids. You can, but you have to build out truly massive amounts of storage to make it work. i.e. Water Reservoirs. You know, those things hydroelectric dams use so that their output is not crap most of the time (and other reasons)? And that environmentalists want to destroy/remove?

This problem is solved by its very nature by fuel-based systems, as the fuel IS the storage. You consume as you need it.

TLDR - Reliable power methods doesn't need renewables that don't have storage (see hydro). Renewables NEED base load to pick up the slack. Every windmill out there should have the cost of the backup gas peak plant added on to its cost, because that's the real total cost of the installation.