While there's no longer any credible basis to assert that Man is not causing warming via CO2 and other gases, there is still room for argument on the best way to tackle CO2 emissions that maximizes effect while minimizing adverse effects on the economy. That's where I often depart from the "true believers." It shouldn't be controversial to say that there is still significant uncertainty about exactly what the future is going to look like; therefore it's possible that some the more draconian reduction schemes may cause unnecessary harm, and disproportionately so to the most compliant countries. All that said, I find myself on the side of emissions reduction in general, not just for the CO2 reduction, but for total pollution reduction, especially that of coal, the burning of which is the worst offender for many dangerous pollutants, like heavy metals, many radioactive.
Carbon will probably have to start being taxed, modestly at first. Contrary to the proposal of the Climate Leadership Council, I would propose that 100% of carbon tax receipts go into public infrastructure that demonstrably facilitates production and distribution of renewable energy.