There are counterexamples: the adoption of multiple technologies to reduce NOx and hydrocarbon emissions from ICE automobiles by more than 100x, the rapid phase-out of CFCs dangerous to the ozone layer.

You're right to point out that the CO2 problem is complicated by the size of the material flows. The mass flow of the fuel is a lot, and if you were to capture CO2 from burning fossil or bio-fuels and pump it underground you'd have to handle a larger mass of CO2. (When I lift a gas can above my shoulders to fuel my tractor, I think of how the gas pump hides the mass of the fuel you put in your car, which is roughly the vehicle's weight per yet)

Battery technology seemed to "hang in the air" and make little progress from 1970 to 1990 the way that 8-bit computers seemed frozen from 1979 to 1989. (Jobs was horrified in 1980 that the Apple ][ was obsolete but it wasn't until IBM PC AT clones became affordable that you were able to buy a new computer that was both compatible with and better than the one you bought two years ago.)

Now it seems possible with some development in material science that sodium could replace lithium in batteries, flow batteries could be a thing, air cathode batteries could be a thing. Back in the day it seemed 90% of the literature on batteries was for those 'reserve' batteries used in missiles, today there are major developments in batteries every year.

There is the gospel (good news!) that "nuclear waste" contains 95%+ of the energy from the original fuel and is a very large prize of fuel already mined and above ground if we master breeder cycles, high temperature reactors (including molten metal and salt), fuel processing and Brayton-cycle turbines. (like a stopped clock the energy literature still compares nuclear costs to coal, but coal has been uncompetitive with turbines fired with natural gas since... about the time we stopped building nuclear power plants)

The paradox is that countries recover quickly from war and natural disasters (e.g. would be able to afford infrastructure investments required by the unnatural CO2 disaster) but recover slowly from financial crises. The above technology is feasible (even the pump CO2 underground bit) but doesn't get applied because of social reasons (a cheaper alternative in the short-term exists.)

I see the crux is this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Logic_of_Collective_Action

one could point to many other applications of that theory (e.g. a majority can oppress a minority physically but has limited room to improve its standard of living that way) but climate change is the one that could wipe us out.

Seen that way a big problem is the existence of multiple states. For instance the US emits 15% of the CO2 which is outsized for our population, but if we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow it would be insufficient to solve the problem.

It's like a kindergarten classroom where there is always one kid that's a troublemaker. Back in the Trump administration, the US was contemptuous about taking action and that made it easy for (say) Germany to talk a good game while taking irresponsible actions such as shutting off a major form of carbon free energy. Now the US is better but it will be China or India or Saudi Arabia or maybe France that plays the heel next.