William House, this is an essential debate. Because making the wrong decision can really cost us.

I'm not sure if the MAGA analogy is the best analogy. Stabalizing the temperature of the planet is not returning to the past (or nostalgia for it) but a vital part of our future.

How we should proceed depends on the cost of adaption versus maintaining something close to our current temperatures. We need the most accurate figures , sums and models on these. Then, of course, the hard part is selling the solution to the public (look at the experience with vaccines).

There is still a poplar notion that doing nothing won't cost us and why should we put money into something we can't quite see or visualize.

We are currently paying for the rising temperatures. It's $X per year per American household (that figure is going to vary quite dramatically for different countries). Next year the price will be $X Plus and so on.

It actually would be very helpful if those prices are driven home (that was lacking by Democrats in selling the infrastructure bill and BBB -- the cost of NOT doing this).

It may be that the price of adaption (including money, political, security, immigration etc) is more than keeping the carbon emissions within limits.

Many thanks