This isn’t really a helpful reply, because of course it’s not a question of magically reducing pollution.

There are two basic modes of reducing pollution. Technological advancement, and conservation.

In the case of technological advancement, you get less pollution per unit of output as the same or lower cost. As long as capital is fairly cheap, these advances tend to propagate quickly through a competitive market.

In the case of conservation, it’s more a question of which groups of people should conserve (i.e. suffer) for this outcome, and by how much.

Why do governments fail to take advantage of this opportunity to inject money into their economy? Didn't Trump promise to bring the manufacturing jobs back? How is he going to achieve that if he's not going to rebuild the current power infrastructure or discourages companies from investing into the lucrative EV market?

I'm seriously wondering why there is any reason to oppose technological progress at all. What can they possibly gain by sticking to the old technology? Who's going to benefit from something so short sighted?

We might be steering into an ice age and Co2 induced global warming is the only way for humanity to survive.

That would be cool, please post links to your model's source code and data set.

Too much of it is, as water in your lungs, or air in your beer: having too much of it will make your greenhouse too hot, the one you live in and cannot leave.

But more than the current amount will help crops grow better and prevent people from freezing to death in winter.