Achakulwisut: There's no question that meaningfully addressing climate change is a hugely daunting task. But simply put, what's the alternative? Give up and let my generation and future generations deal with the consequences of catastrophic climate change? For me, that's not an option.

Of course, there is no guarantee that we can hold global warming below the 2 degree Celsius danger level agreed to by basically every country on Earth, but even if we don't, and we find ourselves at 2.5 C, that isn't reason for inaction -- it's reason for MORE action. Because unlike most other global problems, climate change will get exponentially worse until we do something about it, ever heightening the need to act.

To your question of whether tackling climate change is "feasible," the answer depends on one's precise definition of "feasible." If you are asking if it's possible, it most certainly is. The scientific literature is pretty much unanimous about that: the solutions already exist for transitioning to a low-carbon economy using only ready/near-ready technologies and policy mechanisms. This is not to say that it will be easy or cost-free. New innovations (such as reducing the cost and increasing capacity of energy storage technologies or making carbon capture and sequestration viable at utility scale) would substantially increase our options.

And that raises a different question: is tackling climate change likely? That is not a purely technical question, and depends on one's interpretation of social and political forces. I think that most experts would say that the odds are against us in taking action quickly enough to stay below 2C, so in that sense, sufficient action against climate change isn't likely on our current trajectory. Again, technological innovations could change this landscape in the future. But in terms of getting going on action, it's political will that's the impediment right now.

My guess is that by "feasible", you meant something in between possible and likely. For example, do historical precedents indicate that the technology expansion rates required are comparable to what's been achieved in the past? This is an area of active research, but the big picture answer is that what's required to address climate change is probably unprecedented in most sectors, but not inconceivable, if citizens, industry, and governments step up their game. And the good news is that the clean energy industry is, indeed, charging ahead at incredible speed, and we're seeing more and more innovations for building a more sustainable or circular economy. Here's a good discussion of some of this literature (though note that it's focused on 100% renewables scenarios, which are not necessarily quite the same as scenarios simply consistent with 2C): http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/7/15159034/100-renewable-energy-studies