In my eyes, not "having good science on the last few percent of carbon emissions" was never a valid reason. We always had good science on how to get rid of 80-90% of the carbon emissions. So we should have done that quicker, as even if that were the limit for quite a while, it would cut down the problem by 80-90%. That would have given us valuable time to solving the remaining emissions.
Correct, that's what I meant by we could/should always have gone faster.
But, it's still good to acknowledge progress from "We know that we could roll out renewables today to 80% within a specific timescale and actually save money, lives and ecosystems doing so based on proper research" to 100%. It destroys even that tiny kernel of truth that they'd built a very big lie on top of.
We have had good science but the economics were not favorable until the last decade or so (there have been truly massive declines in solar and wind costs in that period--particularly solar).
