Appreciate your reply and I understand where you‘re coming from. 

With regards to the NAP, the question which needs to be asked is what is actually harmful. If we e.g. look at car traffic, pollution other than CO2 like nitric oxide or particulate matter are very harmful to others today and may be more harmful than CO2 might ever become. Even electric cars do not resolve this as components like tyres or breaks cause this kind of air pollution as well. 

Nevertheless, if we compare car traffic today with 50 years ago, the unhealthy pollution declined massively. This is because humans are innovative and came up with solutions like catalysts. 

The same can be true for climate related issues. Just think for example of rising sea levels. Did you know that 20% of the Netherlands is land reclaimed from the sea? Humans are really great at shaping their environment and will continue to strive even with rising sea levels.

I think the main reason why more and more people reject the climate debate is its unbalanced approach to environmental issues (focus on CO2 only) and the rejection of innovation as a means to mitigate climate risks.