edit: looks like a couple degrees C
I know there is plenty of funding from government and industry into green technologies to reduce carbon emissions to eventually reduce the total carbon in the atmosphere, but is that enough to cool the earth before greater catastrophic events occur?
Check it out: https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/
Encourage your representative to sponsor the bill! You can also encourage people and organizations to endorse the bill: https://energyinnovationact.org/endorse/
Without this, the only way to fight climate change is a large-scale centralization of power in regulatory forces.
I have some great ideas on how to accomplish this all via voluntary participation. Obivously, it would take some time, though.
All the IPCC reports, in this case SR-1.5, have built in assumptions for Carbon Dioxide Removal ("CDR") tech, of which BECCS is the only one that's more than an entrepreneurs dream or a "science blog" post.
Depending on the model BECCS is expected to capture 151 to 1191 Gigatons of co2 between ~2050 and 2100. Its the yellow section of the graph.
To put that in perspective, we have put about 550 Gt into the air from everything we've burnt since the steam engine was invented. Currently we put about 39Gt/year up.
Effectively, every time you hear someone say "scientists say we have X years left do cut emissions" they are really saying "after which we'll grow and burn and bury gigatons of biomass for 50 years".
We really have zero years left.
Why do you disregard this tech?
The only viable way to reduce the imbalance between Q_out and Q_in is to reduce the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (so photons are reflected back to Earth at a lower rate). This has to be done at national and international scales, and it will require massive, painful changes to powerful interests that invested in fossil fuels plants, meat production facilities, construction projects, etc, which will cause massive economic displacement.
The only CO2 consuming chemical reaction that could be scaled up to the level needed to decrease the atmospheric CO2 concentration is photosynthesis, which sequesters CO2 in the form of wood. We could plant billions of trees, but that requires massive tracts of land where the trees can grow for decades. Unfortunately, the rate of planting trees would have to exceed the rate that trees are being cut down, and under Brazil's new dictator, Captain Planet villains in Brazil alone are cutting down 1 football field of Amazon rainforest every minute.
Unfortunately, we're too late to stop climate change from disastrously harming our futures and life expectancies.
And even if we win the Presidency, the steps needed to fight climate change will be very painful for all of the people whose dirty jobs are eliminated. It will take a policy proposal like the Green New Deal, which accounts for that pain with corresponding social safety net programs and occupational retraining programs. But cleaning up this mess would require long term Democratic control, and that's unlikely given the expected pain.
Very roughly speaking, we're looking at a pot on a gas stove rapidly heating up. Shutting down the gas valve is the easiest and most efficient way to stop it heating up. While the gas is still flowing, it's kind of pointless to ask "Yes, but is there any better way to cool the pot?"
So yes, cutting CO2 emissions is probably the only workable approach.
This organization’s plan to do carbon capture with olivine sounded impressive to me.
Generally speaking, it's not possible to control the planet's temperature. All solutions are focused on either greenhouse gas emissions, or solar radiation management. 
I think a better model is where the EPA becomes a branch of the military. They all seem to have unlimited funds for their various projects. They could be operating the direct air capture machines being developed by Bill Gates and friends, or protect the existing natural machinery. Alternatively if this proves to be insufficient they have other means at their disposal.
I think something like this: https://thefreethoughtproject.com/harvard-geoengineering-par...
So, some kind of geoengineering
There are a bunch of ways large complex cultures have empirically (historically) been shown to change - via external shocks, leadership, social movements, technological innovation etc. Not one of them involve billions of people all spontaneously deciding to be exceptional (a mathematical impossibility!) and behaving counter-culturally as you might wish. If that's your only hope, we're done.
Solving this problem requires new elected officials who believe climate change is an issue and then taking actions that'll likely outright destroy prior industries.
I'm not understanding this point. It seems people at many different economic levels believe that climate change is real. It's not only the wealthy who believe...
A $2500 used Toyota Corolla beats a Model 3 on purchase price, insurance, 5 year TCO, and on "how far and flexibly can I road trip it?"
Certainly not cheaper or cleaner.
My hope big oil or coal has some answers on how to clean up the mess they made, it’s wishful thinking I know. It would be profitable though.
The US Navy have some rather nice CO2-to-jetfuel technology. It just costs more than getting it from oil.
The North Korea/South Korea demilitarized zone is a wildlife refuge. Native species have thrived in the area around the Chernobyl disaster after people peaced out. The Earth will soldier on.
We still have to deal with sea level rise, anthropogenic climate change, coral destruction, deforestation, because we have to deal with the effects. First-order effect of coral destruction is loss of habitat for fish, leading to collapse of marine species that use that habitat, leading to collapse of certain kinds of commercial fishing, leading to loss of livelihood and a food source for coastal communities.
Now is not a time for flippant comments about the robustness of life and nature "in general". Now is a time for very radical and drastic action to prevent even worse outcomes than the terrors which humans who are alive now are already guaranteed to face.
If the time scale of climate change matched the time scale of coral evolution, then your comforting thought might hold water. Unfortunately, our climate is changing faster than many evolutionary processes can keep up with.
Rates of change can matter. Just because you can safely walk down 30 flights of steps, doesn't mean you can safely jump off the roof of a 30-story building.
That's just the most recent and reliable example - we don't have the ability to measure such changes far into the past.
1. get rid of the nuclear power fear
2. eat way less meat
Here you go, I solved it, now gimme a Nobel peace prize.
1. Where do you store the waste? How do you calculate the risk of a nuclear accident and weight this against the negative impacts of climate change?
2. How do you achieve this on a global scale?
2. Tricky. Educate kids. But of course, I am not delusional about human nature.
Checkout this talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciStnd9Y2ak
As the climate and the Earth's ecosystems move into unprecedented states (including treating it like a tensor and including the rate of change) there is little reason for that degree of optimism.