The goal is really no longer preventing it; that’s not realistic. The goal is keeping it at ‘merely very bad’ rather than extinction level.

Has the updated goal made cooperation easier?

It’s not the cooperation that’s the issue. Every country can come together for the Olympics. It’s the cost. Green energy and co2 emissions reduction needs to have a cheaper price point to be globally adopted. If being green meant being more efficient and cost reduction it would be a no brainer. This is the challenge of green tech. We have to create the alternative. No one is willing to jump in a lifeboat made out of good intentions.

Also, I understand your frustration with this topic. The method of guilting people into changing makes me sick. I can’t think of a more counterproductive method of evangelism. We need to make real products that do the things that will give humanity a prosperous future. Politics isn’t how we will get out of this, imho. Science and engineering is the key.

> If being green meant being more efficient and cost reduction it would be a no brainer.

The studies indicate that it's a lot cheaper to avert climate change than to deal with the consequences. So, economically speaking, it is a no-brainer.

> Politics isn’t how we will get out of this, imho. Science and engineering is the key.

We mostly have the technological means now to deal with the issue, but politics are the impediment. We can't convince people to do things we know are the sane way forward.

Technological improvements will help if they come through, but it's madness to bank the future of our civilisation on future breakthroughs that may or may not happen.

> It’s not the cooperation that’s the issue. Every country can come together for the Olympics.

It has been repeatedly demonstrated that countries can come together for the Olympics. It has yet to be demonstrated that they can do the same to fight global climate change. The opposite seems to be the case so far, as far as I can tell.

> The method of guilting people into changing makes me sick.

100% agree.

> Politics isn’t how we will get out of this, imho. Science and engineering is the key.

To move forward, we are going to need both science and engineering, and some minimum level of agreement in Democratic countries. Perhaps if we could manage that, China might consider getting on board as well.

I personally think the problem is not one of technological, but rather one of will.

There are many vested interested, motivation by greed who are working hard to fight any action, which is easy enough to understand.

What I fail to understand is the (voting majority of the) populous just don't seem to care.

Unfortunately, for these reasons I too find it hard to believe this is a problem that will be prevented.

Realistic. Everything else sounds like hopium. Sure, let's try and clean up our mess and change our energy sources but looking at how things have been and are going it wouldn't be realistic to think we will solve this or even mitigate it. What else are we going to do though?

I believe it only takes a few changes to make sufficient difference. Changes that are already in action.

Humans have cooperated plenty. Many universal or nearly- universal treaties have been signed by all nations. In fact humans already cooperated on an atmospheric pollution treaty when we prevented the destruction of the Ozone layer.

Or that:

1) Actual solutions to climate change are not taken seriously (nuclear power, natural gas)

2) Effect size is still unknown or small. 0.3C over decades is not much to write home about.

3) Solutions to climate change have to include developing / third world countries.

And most importantly:

4) Oil/gas with capitalism has lead to the greatest throughput of innovation known to mankind, lifting billions out of poverty, medical and scientific advances, and allows 7B people to live on earth. Removing and replacing this will have consequences that IMHO go beyond a 0.3C increase in temp and a few cm increase in water level. Just MHO.

That's definitely a step up from flat earther, more along the lines of "the moon landing was faked" levels of denialism.

We can do this right now. Sequestration of all human-driven carbon output at current costs and with current technology amounts to something like 1.5% of world GDP.

As for cooperation, that's a bad faith argument. Saying you won't do something because no one else will is just a sneaky way of saying you won't do it. Someone has to start. Someone has to be willing to start. If you aren't willing to start, you simply don't want to see the problem solved.

Just come out and give us the cynical argument if you really want to go there: the bulk of the human damage[1] from climate change will be felt in still developing equatorial nations and not in the temperate latitudes where you and your friends live (hell, Russia and Canada might well come out "ahead"!).

[1] The ecosystem damage and mass extinction event will be pervasive everywhere, but then I doubt you care about that either.