Or at least for the least 20-30 years. Sure theoretically there was long term a way to salvage it. But it was always unrealistic given the large change in economics and society it requires.

But there is a difference between a bad and a even worse situation.

So just because we can't reach a perfect outcome doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reach a better outcome.

Because of this I really don't like arguments like "we are at the point of no return" as it's often used as a argument that supposedly any improvement is pointless. (Through I think you do not mean it that way).

I mean the way we are heading will like not directly lead to a extinction of humans, but it might make live unbearable for most of humanity and it also might prevent us from reaching the necessary tech to survive other extinction events.

But this also means that "just making thinks a bit better" can in the long term have a major difference even if it won't prevent a climate catastrophe.