Meaningful action will happen by semi-random chance (breakthrough in low-emission energy) or by force of nature (climate changes so much that we have no choice but to act). In general, I don't think the average, or even somewhat above-average, person will be motivated by an abstract risk like the specter of CO2-induced climate change, unless incentives are created at a societal level to celebrate advancements in this field of technology and the associated low-emission lifestyle.

And would it be safe to assume that low-emission energy has much lower ROI, in a traditional sense, than fossil fuels? If so, I double down on my above predictions about triggers for meaningful change.

But that's life, isn't it? We're only capable of optimizing towards a finite distance in the future. If that weren't the case, we would be gods, not humans. And we certainly wouldn't be in this mess, or perhaps any mess, in the first place.