1) Given our current technology and technology reasonably expected to be available in the near future, we are unable to control the climate to the extent that we could change it to our advantage or stop changes already occurring. What weather altering devices have we created in the last hundred years?
Cloud seeding? Marginal effects and wouldn't help stop climate change as far as I know.
Carbon cleaning? Very much an infant science. Not likely to have any impact in the foreseeable future other than slightly slowing the rate of carbon increase in the air.
Reducing carbon emission? Clearly the goal of the Climate Change movement. That's a non-starter because:
2) The U.S. does not have the will to reduce our use of carbon to the point that we have to give up the conveniences of the industrial age. We might drive electric cars when they become a little cooler and a little cheaper. But they will still run on carbon-generated electricity and still be built by mining the nickel, lithium, manganese, and cobalt for the multiple batteries. Such mining is harmful to the environment, not to mention the social costs.
We won't go solar or wind unless it is cheaper and just as reliable as fossil fuel electricity. We won't go nuclear, because . . . hate to say it . . . because some people watch too many movies. The U.S. will not "do our share" to reduce climate change, and even if we did, it would be to no avail because:
3) The rest of the world will not even consider reducing its carbon. China and Russia are by far the worst creators of carbon emissions and they could not care less that they are. We have little leverage on either of them. What little we do is useless for stopping climate change because the Party that is willing to stand up to China and Russia doesn't care about climate change and the Party that cares about climate change is not willing to stand up to China and Russia.
So, what's the solution?
Preparation.
Climate change is coming and worst case scenario, it will cause great harm to the human livability of certain areas of the Earth. Good news is that we can easily predict which areas will suffer the most harm if the worst-case climate models are realized.
The discussion should be about what steps to take to reduce that harm to humans.
I agree except for 2) and 3), and there is likely minimal benefit from reducing CO2 emissions, BUT,
We need to move away from fossil fuels, because they we become too expensive to sustain society!
(They really will not, but only because they will be price themselves out of the market.)
Wind, might have some uses , but solar has real potential, if paired with massive seasonal grid scale energy storage.
The problem is, the only people who have the capability to do this, are the oil companies the environmentalist have been demonizing for decades!
Once we prefect the process at scale, we sell the less expensive carbon neutral fuels around the world!
Organic oil will still be needed, for plastics and other uses, just not as fuel.
But to get from where we are now, to where we need to be, we need oil, natural gas, and Nuclear power.