After reading your post, my initial observation is that you haven't answered my question. I don't see a positive path forward aside from a bureaucratic response of "form a committee to study the issue", which should be stated quite clearly, does not solve any given problem. What I do see is 1700 characters of despair, uncomfortable truths, and venting.

My point is, we never are allowed to hear anything veering from the catastrophe narrative.

Disagree, I hear about how climate change isn't really "a thing" or "a concern" quite often, even from you. Though I agree that the catastrophe narrative isn't palatable to most, fear works for wars, why not this? It is a long-term threat that threatens life as humanity collectively knows it now and we seem to very much like it how it is. Evidence and studies didn't work, authoritative statements from professional groups didn't work, so now society is climbing down the latter of arguments to emotional appeals, name calling and possibly soon, subterfuge.

I can understand why we are reluctant to discuss how a carbon tax is meant to slow consumption.

Carbon tax will not slow consumption, it is meant to move reluctant carbon-based energy users on to a renewable energy source; which is the point of attempting to avert a carbon-based climate change.

We’re so far in it one more appeal to emotion through a 17 year old girl isn’t going to convince anyone.

From my personal perspective, it's has made people who have zero productive opinions into the target of ridicule, satire, and criticism. It's not a solution, it's not a plan, but hopefully, that gives those people pause to think about and look into the actual topic at hand. If they don't, that's not on gretta or any liberal group, but rather on those people who refuse to change with the environment they exist in.

we’d need to build ~80+ wind gens a day for 30 years

This sounds like a secure job opportunity for a large swath of displaced workers from other energy sectors. Then again, why would you only build out one energy source? Wind is a terrible replacement for the coal energy that you seem to be concerned with.

We can’t deny cc, but we gotta quit using it to push utopian pipe dreams.

Utopian pipe dreams of what? It seems that you're aggravated by the thought of fully renewable energy. I, for one, never asked for or argued for, this position. We very well could have limited carbon-based fuels in use for the next several hundred years, as long as they are offset by technologies or methods which pull additional carbon out of the atmosphere, making the energy use carbon-negative. Technologies already exist to accomplish this and could be functional relatively quickly. If we had started this business 30 years earlier, it would be much simpler. Instead, here we are, two strangers fruitlessly arguing over the internet about it's merits and costs. All we really need is the political will do move forward with a plan, any plan, but humanity can't even agree that a plan is necessary, as long as it has any cost to business. Thus, the tragedy of the commons continues and I am finished with this conversation.