Hey Jo. I'm with you! But for the sharp turn at the end. That rhetoric is just more nirvana fallacy. "Unless its at-scale mitigation, it doesn't count." How at scale? How coordinated? How many governments need to be involved? Can you precisely break down for me what "truly international effort involving most everyone," means, how that's measured, how we match it against the myriad variables and possibilities?

If it's not enough so far, should we disband the UN? Unfold the IPCC? Stop having the annual conference of the parties? Should every Al Gore pack up their power points, every Greta Thunberg just keep her little opinions to herself? What about anyone putting solar panels on their roofs? Or switching to an EV? "Forget it, guys, it's not going to be enough?"

We could talk about the aggregation of marginal gains, but then you might ask, Well HOW aggregate are we talking? But we don't even know what we need to surmount, exactly. So what does "good luck" even mean? Because it sounds an awful lot like a smarmy, " any one who thinks anything can possibly make a difference without an absolutely perfect response to climate change is naive," to me.