Because that seems to be entirely missing the point I was making, which was that the long-term changes that are needed aren't going to happen precisely because people like Trump, who are in the position to (at least try to) make them happen show no desire to. The problem is wider than, and predates Trump, but he's in power in the US now and seems determined to ignore the problem. You can't say he's right to ignore the problem that he himself is pushing to one side...
I suspect that your position is being driven by scepticism that there's really a problem in the first place, which is fair enough on the grounds of consistency, but even aside from that it seems a little defeatist: "we can't solve the problem so why even try?", which never got us anywhere.
I might add that so far whenever we *have* been faced with potential environmental disasters and not let the scale of the problem get to us, we managed to solve them. Perhaps high atmospheric lead levels, Ozone depletion, and deadly diseases such as Smallpox and Polio, are less controversially awful, but in particular with the first two it was actually a huge fight to drive through the changes needed to combat the problem; a few years later, one wonders why it took us so long to get around to it. Climate Change is on a larger scale but once people start taking it seriously I'm optimistic that it, too, can be solved -- or at least mitigated. But it requires political will. 2015 in Paris saw the first step towards that; Trump's move represents potentially a massive backwards step, since the two countries that matter the most are the US and China.
Speaking of which... Khandro, start a thread about China and I'll criticise them there. Since no-one has, I haven't had an opportunity to criticise them. But then you could say the same about North Korea, another topic I've been fairly silent on in AB threads and certainly not because I'm secretly a mouthpiece of Kim Jong-Un.