There are two things that have to happen in tandem: 1) Mitigating the effects 2) Minimizing the effects Going all in on one or the other is a fools' errand.

There are two things that have to happen in tandem: 1) Mitigating the effects 2) Minimizing the effects Going all in on one or the other is a fools' errand. The appropriate solution, IMO, is a substantial carbon tax, with some proportion of it going to funding mitigation and the rest going toward a citizens' dividend. A pro of this arrangement: to the degree that it's easy to cut down on carbon pollution, it will drive people in that direction. And in the areas where it's really hard to cut down on carbon pollution, it'll act as an economically efficient tax that's passed on to consumers and then rebated to the people. There're almost no losers (except for the many people who disproportionately benefit right now from offloading their carbon pollution onto other people).