1. Its a little too pat that everything progressives and socialists seek in society matches up so perfectly with the solutions to GCC. I've said this in the past, but it's like a bunch academics insisted that it was proven fact that life begins at conception and gay marriage erodes families and is a net detriment to society.
2. I've read a whole lot on DCC, the crux for me is that no one gives a adequate explanation of the albedo, which is the basis being concerned about DCC. The rise of emissions, yes, and a panoply of new products and procedures to minimizes. But no one really explains credibly how the carbon emission is stopping sun rays from returning to space, but doesn't stop the increased solar waves that are incoming.
3. And this is the confounding point, all solutions are straight up retrograde harming the poor the most. One can only drive so many cars or leave so many lights on. And the more innovative the renewable solution the more expensive they are. Solar panels, even with MASSIVE incentives from the Feds, states, and power companies [on the order of 60% of total installed costs], the ROI is in the decade and a half range.
The best I can conjure is an issue of optics. It might be a more palatable to let alternative energy be borne by the remorseful rich. It's fairly equal in operation to taxing the rich more and more and more, then subsidize energy needs of the poor, but at least it remains voluntary.
Hunter Pence has no opinion on Lena Dunham's attractiveness.