Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I have a plan. Not sure how effective it will be. However, it will IMHO reduce emissions based on simple economics.

Carbon tax. Design it to be revenue neutral, offsetting against some reduction in taxes elsewhere (I prefer the payroll tax as they would both be regressive taxes). Set the rate high enough to be noticeable, but not so punitive that it will ruin the economy.

Let the market figure out how to reduce carbon usage to save money. 

youre making an assumption that an improvement in the US would solve the problem

why should the US pay tax when the rest of the world does not

The carbon tax is probably simplest solution to the underlying problem, which is that the cost to the polluter are effectively zero and the costs of the pollution can be spread among everybody and pushed into the future where someone else pays it.

again the US accounts for only 15% of the world's carbon emissions so how is taxing the US population going to fix the problem

That would be why a multinational plan would be preferable. Though the tax could in theory be assessed on any goods and services imported from China or anywhere else.

good luck with that

until the world pays I really dont see it as something the US would accept

You can tax things, but that doesn't magically solve the problem, at all, you just make energy that we have more expensive.  It should increase the rate at which other energy sources can compete of course, but it cannot solve the problem, the solution doesn't exist outside nuclear.  The math is inexorable, we're kidding ourselves to think otherwise.  This MIGHT have been useful in say 2000.

The idea of a carbon tax used to reduce FICA taxes is nice though the reduction would be small, and the reduction in CO2 would be small.  You can't magically WISH wind and solar and EVs into existence over night.

I have posted clear evidence it isn't enough.

No you haven't. The problem with predictions of the future is they are typically wrong, and a random claim is not particularly convincing. In any event, focusing on temperature seems like the wrong focus. We can measure the carbon - the first step would be to try and slow the emission growth.

The first step is to convince the other 85% of the world to slow emission growth

Slowing emission growth is possible, and irrelevant.  The whole premise is based on predictions.

if everything is an elephant why bother