WWII (and WWI) could have been avoided by diplomatic negotiation, certainly. Also, very few people would argue that these wars were related to climatic conditi

WWII (and WWI) could have been avoided by diplomatic negotiation, certainly. Also, very few people would argue that these wars were related to climatic conditions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. However, from this point forward, the trajectory of climate change is locked in for the next 100 years, and even a heroic global effort to eliminate fossil fuels in the next few decades will only have the effect of not making it even worse for people 100 years from now. Practically, this means that as many resources will have to be devoted to adaptation to new climate conditions as to transitioning off fossil fuels. Notably, the traditional political messaging claims, e.g. "we're facing a climate crisis and we need to take action now!" just don't match up with scientific reality, in the sense that 'taking action now' won't really have any noticeable effect over the next 50 years at least. Political arguments for renewables like 'cleaning up the air and water' or 'ending dependency on foreign suppliers' would probably be more motivating than 'fixing the climate', because the tipping point has come and gone.