The sooner we do it, the impacts will be smaller and it will be cheaper. The longer we wait, the more pain we're in for. Politics don't change that fact. No one said it would be easy, but burying our heads in the sand isn't going to solve anything.
Are you willing to give them money and how much, what if they do not use it for appropriate actions?
Are you willing to force them to change, how do you propose forcing them? Are you willing to wage American lives now for a future probability?
The United States of America has done a great job reducing its environmental impact. Back in the day it was a rare event to see stars in Los Angeles because of the fog (the gaseous burning orb ones not the celebrities), but thanks to the EPA, it is a common occurrence now.
The problem with this is that the populace won't because they are skeptical, for very good reasons.
They see models not working (i.e. alarmism backfired), they see IPCC authors leaving and denouncing authorship because they view the report as too alarmist. They see people warning of "we'll have the worst hurricane seasons ever in the next 5 years!" and then very little happening.
Alarmism has an unfortunate contribution to skepticism (while not the intended result of action) that will keep skeptics in power. And I think this is a good thing.
You advocate for people like Smith to not have positions of power. You should also look at people on the other end of the spectrum, alarmists, who have power and try to use it to incite action. That backfires and we move nowhere. Skepticism, as I mentioned before, is a natural reaction to this.
Change needs to come from both sides.