It's all academic IMO due to China and some extent India. Two countries whose populations make up 1/3 of the planet almost. China doesn't give an F squared about climate change, and will continue to be the largest producer of "evil co2" without a care in the world about meeting global climate change prevention numbers or whatever. Not to mention that both of these countries are responsible for 90 to 95 percent of the world's plastic and garbage going into the oceans - a fact that even the most left of the leftist climate change supporters do not dispute. So, if neither of these countries plan on doing much about climate change, what's the point of bankrupting the West in order to meet some eco-targets regarding emissions? Yes, I realize China is the "world leader" in solar/wind power, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the fossil fuel energy generation, and always will be.
Also, do some research on the NEEM ice core drilling projects in Greenland. The data from these cores show that 10 to 15k years ago up until present day, that the temperatures and co2 levels got much higher than the worst projections are for the year 2100 currently - how did that happen without humanity? A negative doesn't prove a positive, just because the majority of science believes that man made emissions are responsible doesn't prove it, especially when as ^^ the planet got much, much hotter all on its own several times in the last 10k years.