Scientists do not fight, they reason. Political fights are the domain of political activists. The title of your article: How to Really Fight Climate Change indicates that you checked out your scientist’s head at the door when it comes to climate change.
We need a scientific debate in order to understand all the aspects of climate change. Then, we need analysis what we can do, in the most efficient and most effective manner. All of that is a lot of mundane work. No fight is needed. By its nature, fight is a destructive action. How do you want to accomplish anything positive by that?
You did not read my articles; you skimmed them and after finding out that I do not share your religion, you just imputed to me what your religion claims your opponents think. In particular, it is not true that I do not believe in climate change. Also, it is not true that I do not see the need for getting us prepared for upcoming changes. The core of my argument is that there are much better ways of doing this than by spending $17 trillion, or whatever it might be, of money that we do not have. And, I offer a very good explanation, why you advocate for that wasteful government spending.
The difference between us is that I took the scientific approach, you are guided by your political beliefs. In my approach it is important to read and understand arguments of my opponents. This is the reason I read texts as yours. This is the reason that I am frustrated that Medium editors and algorithms shove to me articles propagating the same quasi-religious alarmistic mantra, which boils down to pulling money from my wallet in order to make rich people richer. Nonsense, even if promoted on Medium, even if supported by the majority, even if voted in by Congress, even if signed into law by the President, is still just nonsense.