I think the environmentalists taking a page from religious texts and screaming the world is ending, it is horrible, you're only saved if you do exactly what I say and live in poverty and lack of freedom because Mother Earth demands it is a major problem.
We could spend a trillion dollars likely having no impact on global warming, something that is NOT a disaster. It was warmer 1000 years ago and between the last ice ages. There was no ice at the poles when the dinosaurs were around AND carbon dioxide levels were five times higher - and the world was rich with life.
We should take that money and give the bottom billions of people clean running water, safe housing, education, health care, reliable electricity. Bjorn Lomberg says that will cost around 300 billion. We can either put everyone in poverty for an environmentalist dream that is now a religious myth - or we can bring up the bottom two billion people to developed world standards.
And doing that ends their need for subsistence agriculture that damages the land, provides contraception so they don't have children they don't want, education that leads to smaller families. All this improves the environment and human standards ... but no, too many want to make the same doom and gloom "the world is ending" scenarios they did in the 1970s when promising worldwide famine and cannibalism by 2000.