Honest question, how do you prove this?

Here are my arguments against the motion:

1. 30 years ago we did not have internet. Now most of us have access to vast amount of technical data

2. 30 years ago stakes were not high enough. Now next generation is about to see very high impact.

3. 30 years ago most of the tech that we have now were still in research (ML, cheap computers, availability of funds etc)

Now let's assume you are right, we are out of time. Then following is my argument: Attempting to fix our ecosystem is worthy goal nonetheless and instead of expecting "them" or "government" or "billionaires" to bail us out, I'd rather have us take the responsibility. In worst case, it'll be a adventure and will be worth it.

I don't think you can reduce emissions without either impacting people's lives (jobs, lifestyle) or improving efficiency. And unless you do it very carefully, anything that impacts people's lives has a good chance of getting someone into office who promises to undo all those changes and then some.