If I understand it correctly, the proposed solution is to spend all the money we can borrow (because we have none) on the risky bet that we might stop natural processes.

It is still doubtful if humans caused global warming. We likely contributed to it, but still, it is not convincing if it is meaningful. But, in the worst-case scenario, if the mantra supported by the UN is true, we face the avalanche dilemma. A human can easily trigger an avalanche, but it is beyond human power to stop its destroying power.

The only people who will benefit from the only solution you propose are those who will lend money to the government of the United States.

In short, tell me where I am wrong in my reasoning: https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/science-and-money-in-the-climate-change-debate-f94e3c7130ac.