I don't underestimate them at all... I used to BE young, I remember it quite well.

It's not that their voice doesn't matter, it's that they don't understand the big picture which is that a significant (or catastrophic, as proposed by some folks) disruption in the global economy will have far reaching consequences, to the tune of poverty, famine, and wars costing likely hundreds of millions of lives. That's obvious fact, and you can easily extrapolate from global conflicts in recent history.

I'm opposed to going down the road to KNOWN catastrophe in order to *hopefully* avoid a hypothetical ill-defined possible catastrophe.

If anyone has a plan to TRANSITION the global economy to low-carbon, I'm all ears.

But frankly as an experienced engineer and power guy, I don't see any non-disruptive way to do that on the desired timeline without large-scale use of nuclear power (which could provide zero carbon emissions, or even net carbon removal with clean energy to power carbon capture if needed). But the "greenies" have to much superstitious vodoo fear of that. I'll get behind it when they get serious about it.