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

When I say "we", I mean humanity as a whole.  Certainly individuals can do "something" but it's unrealistic to expect individual or even collective efforts are going to stop this thing, or curtail it by any measurable "degree".

It's going to happen, it's inevitable, and "we" probably should spend some time thinking about how to try and manage the worst of it.  

And yes, a HUGE effort might lop off a couple tenths.

I don't hear or read much about this part. I hear and read plenty about the other stuff. Maybe I need to dig deeper.

One can take a very broad brush view of the US and energy and then consider the other Big Players and their situations.  Take a few common facts:

1.  About a quarter of US CO2 generation is from transportation (burning oil in essence).  You can put a pretty good dent in that with fuel economy increases and more EVs over time.  
2.  The other 75% or so is in electricity generation, which is about a third natural gas and a third coal and 20% nuclear.  So, that is 2/3rds that is fossil fuel today, and cutting that while also allowing for more demand as the country grows is "challenging".  
3.  Wind and solar account for about 6% today to the grid, hydro is about 8% (and not growing).

You can DOUBLE wind and solar (which is less than 1%) over the next decade and barely keep up with growing demand, leaving that 2/3rds figure unchanged.  You have to TRIPLE it to make a small dent in coal and NG, and of course if cars go electric you have more demand from there as well.  Small dent in rate of increase, not turning it negative.

And tripling wind and solar are simply not going to happen in a decade.  That is beyond the wildest growth estimates out there.

So, now consider China, left to the side of Paris until 2030 when they claim they will cap CO2 emissions magically.  Up until then they can pretty much do whatever and India is the same.  Those two countries account for about half of the future CO2 generation globally over time, so whatever the US and Europe manage to do is diluted by China and India (and Brazil et al.) are not doing soon enough.

So, the realistic prospects of curbing CO2 emissions and getting them on a downward trajectory is many decades off and the damage to the climate done in the meantime is not reversible unless we're talking centuries at zero.

You can look in VAIN on the Internet for any quasi-realistic plan to cut CO2 emissions globally, I've looked.  There isn't one, but you do find the same gloom and doom I list here by the MIT folks and others.

Unless ITER generates (ha) a major breakthrough in the next decade, which I don't expect either, we're basically screwed.

This is why leaders get together and sign pointless agreements with great fanfare.  It creates (for some) and illusion that something important was done.  If any of them had a real tangible PLAN, they'd be implementing that plan instead of doing irrelevant paperwork.

I think it's clear that humans are warming the environment via CO2. The questions are as follows:

1) Is warming bad? 
2) Will warming have positive feedback loops such that mild warming causes significantly more warming [i.e. by releasing frozen gases trapped in Siberia thus accelerating CO2, etc]?
3) What is the economic impact of warming [assuming it's negative]?
4) What is the economic impact of breaking the world's dependence on a CO2-based energy market [assuming it's negative]?
5) Is it more important to focus on economic growth and on fixing the effects of warming later, or on fighting CO2 now and accepting the damage to economic growth by hamstringing energy production?

Right now everyone assumes that warming is not only bad, but that it's catastrophic. And that the economic effects of warming will be devastating and destabilize the entire political/economic balance of the world. So we need to DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW!

But that's the one area that I don't see a lot of serious work on. Right now we argue over the IPCC reports and the climate sensitivity numbers, but economic prognostication is a HARD job and we don't really have a clear answer on what warming will really do. We just assume we should stop it due to the precautionary principle.

This is why leaders get together and sign pointless agreements with great fanfare.  It creates (for some) and illusion that something important was done.  If any of them had a real tangible PLAN, they'd be implementing that plan instead of doing irrelevant paperwork.

the irrelevant paperwork has a way of becoming billions of dollars being pushed around to and from groups of folks
mostly tax dollars from folks like us to other folks that seem to need our money to do something irrelevant or nothing at all

The Elgin-O'Hare Expressway? Which at least when I lived there (up until the late 90's) didn't actually reach Elgin or O'Hare?