Coming up with a plan would be squarely in the hands of scientists and engineers and passionate individuals. Perhaps the government and the public would help in enacting that plan, but not in creating it.
I'm led to believe that the scientists and activists are all led by the same empirical research and share a broad consensus. So why then is there no plan or even a concept of a plan after 30 years of talking about all this?
How much? This is what I'm talking about. It's hard to get people to buy a narrative that says we need to spend infinite amounts of money on an as yet undetermined plan, or else life as we know it will end.
Once again, scientists do science. Governments do governance. A scientist can do research and come to conclusions like "dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is bad mmmmkay" and tell you goals like "targeting x-degrees of warming will save us from the worst consequences". Politicians and governments should take those statements and goals and build plans around them and then we can vote for the ones who've got the best plan (or not). Expecting scientists to do the government's job is abdicating all responsibility and setting everyone up for failure.
Lawmakers aren't informed enough to figure out a plan. Experts are needed to do that.
Scientists and industry work together all the time to enact sea changes in the world around us. The AI revolution is a recent example. No legislation or government was needed.
Most of the biggest changes in our lifetimes have happened due to private actors, not government getting involved.
I'm led to believe that the scientists and activists are all led by the same empirical research and share a broad consensus. So why then is there no plan or even a concept of a plan after 30 years of talking about all this?