I don't think anyone here is making that argument. We should do what we are able to do, but with the recognition that global warming will continue, because India and China will not help, unless and until carbon-free energy is the clear economic choice and they would be foolish to build more coal-fired power plants. That is how so many coal-fired plants in the U.S. were closed: it was simply more economical to burn natural gas -- the reduced carbon dioxide emissions and the nasty coal particulate (with heavy metals), and sulfur dioxide emissions were simply an environmental bonus from a decision made for economic reasons.
This means we need to do a number of things:
-- big focus upon R&D (batteries, solar, DC/conversion, modern nuclear, batteries, geothermal, tidal) and subsidies to build U.S. manufacturing capacity and reduce cost by gaining manufacturing experience. Initial modern nuclear, tidal, and geothermal generating stations will need subsidy. This is more promising than schemes to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere
-- reduce carbon emissions, as fast as reasonably doable, but not on the exaggerated rush now being talked about (it is one thing to subsidize the relatively small number of EVs today and a few years into the future in order to move along the manufacturing experience curve and lower cost, but... it is a break-the-budget proposition to subsidize 2/3 of car sales as is the current target for 2035. To reach that share of new car sales, they must be stand-alone competitive
--EVs have to be redesigned to be practical for the broad middle class. One alternative, which also gets around the raw material shortage, is to make most EVs with much smaller batteries and only 100-120 mile range, rather than 350. Most middle class familites have two cars (other than those in inner metro areas), so one car for longer trips and the reduced-range EV for shorter trips. For one-car families -- rent a longer-range EV or hybrid for longer trips. The shorter-range EVs will save weight and at least halve the battery cost.
-- spend a lot more than we are on infrastructure to protect against rising sea level, stronger storms, heat effects on power grids (and cold in stubborn, stupid states like TX who refuse to weather-proof their electrical generation/grid infrastructure
-- Do far more than we are to reduce forest fires and extinguish them quickly.
--agriculture needs to both be more robust to heat and drought and a means of sequestering carbon. GMO plants likely a big part of this.
--serious research on geoengineering solutions to at least buy more time
I believe that acting at breakneck speed, as if we ourselves can even dent the rate of global warming, is counter-productive. If we do all that is proposed, I fear our descendants 20 years from now will own a lot of obsolete clean technology. We are dealing with technologies which are changing very rapidly.