We should be simple executing what was agreed in the Paris Agreement as it reflects our best evaluation of the cost to benefits ratio.
But current policies are aiming at 1.5 degree higher than what we evaluated as the optimal solution.
If you want to talk about the "climate crisis", I'm going to keep pointing to the lack of good modeling in regard to water vapor and air travel (which has a specific phase relationship with sunshine that must be taken into account). I'll also try to dig up that graph correlating the rise in air travel with temperatures. I'll insist that even if I accept human cause of these changes (which I'm willing to do), it is reasonably likely due to air travel and you can't show otherwise without those models.
Here's a fluff piece: https://globalnews.ca/news/2934513/empty-skies-after-911-set...
Something better, but need to follow references: https://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201...
The jury is still out on this and it seems to have a large effect and can do so in a very short time (on the order of days).
Of course, this translates to democracy; if a sitting government decided to, for example, force a whole industry to shut down, do you think the people working in that industry would vote for the same party again? I mean granted, this issue is bigger than sitting parties and votes and I'm sure some are willing to sacrifice their political career - or the lives and livelihoods of civilians - for it, but you get what I mean.
https://theconversation.com/four-hiroshima-bombs-a-second-ho...
A second! We are basically in a nuclear holocaust of epic proportions and this is nowhere near exaggerating it.