It's strange logic to look to attribute blame to the people who are most concerned about the problem.

'Women are the ones who appear most concerned about misogyny, or so the media tells us... why don't they solve the problem themselves!?'

Forcing electric cars onto people when they're not any good, they pollute more and there is no infrastructure. Congestion charges, like the London one but also elsewhere - along with high prices in public transport. Fuel tax, carbon tax, shutting of car parking spaces.
As I already said, my city was far more industrial a hundred years ago, electricity and power was produced by water wheels - yet we're incapable of the same or better today? That technology is old and well around. The biggest issue where I live: Salmon fishers. The technology is there. Even large sheets would obviously reflect light away from oceans - not that high tech or requiring even, say, the logistics of mining for oil miles underground.
An idea recently mooted was reducing temperature by reflecting light away from the atmosphere. Kind of a man made version of what happens when major volcanoes go off. That's something that can quite clearly be done. We know that dust created lower temperatures. We'd have to find a safe way to do it. Maybe it's not easy? But I'm not seeing any of the obvious ideas. Just tax people out of things but don't offer much, or any at all, actual alternatives.
Any reasonable person, for example, is going to come to a common sense solution to cars. Recycle and fix old ones. Not scrap everything and replace with a technology that actually creates more problems.
I was considering, when everyone has an electric car, imagine the land use required for charging. Yet alone, the electricity usage and how that's generated.

You just seem to want to be contradictory on this - so fair enough. I've given doable alternatives which would have huge impacts for cheaper than changing the whole way people live. But let's just go along with the changing of an entire society and way of life and charging people for the pleasure. The green revolution. Perhaps we could just go pre-industrial and be serfs or farmers? Obviously no point in using readily available technology to reverse climate change. Why even consider it at all.

Forcing electric cars onto people when they're not any good, they pollute more and there is no infrastructure. Congestion charges, like the London one but also elsewhere - along with high prices in public transport. Fuel tax, carbon tax, shutting of car parking spaces.
As I already said, my city was far more industrial a hundred years ago, electricity and power was produced by water wheels - yet we're incapable of the same or better today? That technology is old and well around. The biggest issue where I live: Salmon fishers. The technology is there. Even large sheets would obviously reflect light away from oceans - not that high tech or requiring even, say, the logistics of mining for oil miles underground.
An idea recently mooted was reducing temperature by reflecting light away from the atmosphere. Kind of a man made version of what happens when major volcanoes go off. That's something that can quite clearly be done. We know that dust created lower temperatures. We'd have to find a safe way to do it. Maybe it's not easy? But I'm not seeing any of the obvious ideas. Just tax people out of things but don't offer much, or any at all, actual alternatives.
Any reasonable person, for example, is going to come to a common sense solution to cars. Recycle and fix old ones. Not scrap everything and replace with a technology that actually creates more problems.
I was considering, when everyone has an electric car, imagine the land use required for charging. Yet alone, the electricity usage and how that's generated.

You can't have an alternative view on facts - there is next to no disagreement amongst experts in this field.

I don't really know where to start with this - you clearly have no comprehension of what I've said.