Yea there's just no way. Any response at a global (and, in the US, national and state) level will be 100% reactive, and 0% proactive. Since there are still people arguing over the cause, I'm starting to think it might be more productive to move the conversation from trying to be proactive (which requires everyone to agree on the cause) to reactive (which does not).<p>In other words, start preparing for the outcome of this. We, as a species, cannot seem to be able to stop what we are doing.
I love this quote [1]:<p>> To limit global warming to 1.5 degree C is "possible within the laws of chemistry and physics," said Jim Skea, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc-report-wxc/index.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/07/world/climate-change-new-ipcc...</a>
“One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we're doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world's wealth.”<p>“ Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.”<p>— Ottmar Edenhofer,
co-chair of the IPCC in 2010
Can someone explain to me why planning a ton of trees to suck up excess C02 won't work? It seems so obvious and simplistic that it must have been thought of already so I can only assume that there are problems with it.