This is a nice way of looking at it. Another is that there is a sort-of "public consensus" and people are really trying to forbid anyone from (significantly) de

This is a nice way of looking at it. Another is that there is a sort-of "public consensus" and people are really trying to forbid anyone from (significantly) deviate from it. And like any sort of large-scale consensus, it's dumb ("simple" if you like). Why? Because any sufficiently large group must accommodate below-average humans, and, well, those are below average. So such any large scale consensus cannot be very complicated, and cannot advocate for complex solutions. For example, I prefer using something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_chaos to use very minimal resources to take control of weather, and the climate, and letting go of emission limits (at least for CO2). It doesn't require everyone to cooperate and will be a heck of a lot cheaper. This in turn protects a lot of mostly poorer people who don't really have that much to do with the problem, while remaining a realistic option. (or more bluntly: it's a realistic option that doesn't ask the poor to live in the cold)