It is a simple fact that you cannot have economic growth without increased Energy use. Increasing Energy use means more CO2 in the atmosphere and the climate does seem to be changing (I think Climate models are like economic models; they tend towards inherent bias and innumerable to infinity false positives because of assumptions that are spurious at best; but my opinion does not matter in the slightest.)
The orthodox approach to climate change is to use less Energy,  or to exterminate the worldwide bovine population, or to use inefficient, expensive, unreliable renewable Energy instead. I think their is a great future for renewable energy; is it possible to wind farms in the middle of the Atlantic? is it possible to go to the Moon? If Hanergy Energy have found a way of embedding an efficient solar panel in a pane of glass, then I think every building and every car should have one. This technology will not develop quickly, vast amounts of resources and investment is required. National Governments have squabbled about cutting carbon emissions and have been unable to agree any measures that are able to have an effect in reducing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, Would they be willing to pool resources to develop technology for more efficient renewable Energy? Would the Bill Gates Foundation, or Mark Zuckerberg, or some other benevolent firm be willing to pioneer a project like building windfarms deep out to sea in the cape of good hope. Would it make sense to build solar panels and place them in the entirety of all the Deserts in the World? This would have more affect than trying to persuade national governments to slow Economic growth by using less Energy. Environmental groups would probably protest if some one did try and build a massive platform in the middle of the sea to put wind turbines on, but most people do not want their living standards to go backwards in the short-term by being austere with consumption and energy.
I am not an Engineer, but I think devices shaped like ship's Sails would capture wind more effectively than a huge metal windmill. Is it possible to design a device made from super light material which could be flown like a kite in order to capture high velocity, high altitude  winds and use it to generate energy? Even a device on the sea and on land shaped like a sail; would seem in layman's terms to be more efficient than the current, some might say,  not aerodynamic, obtrusive design.
Drones with effective solar panels could be used above the cloud line to capture Solar Electricity at high altitude, and then store it using effective batteries and deliver it when needed to power stations. Perhaps someone more qualified needs to come up with realistic ideas, but my point is that they should be discussing new technology, funding new ideas, on a much larger scale using international national government funding, alongside much needed private philanthropic funding. This is the first priority of business; it would need a conference lasting a hundred years for all the nations of the world to agree to stop using so much energy; the problem is Carbon, not Energy, provision of Energy is required for the international ending of poverty and free energy provided by a State run Monopoly is the most effective to way to run it.
This will not happen overnight, there needs to be a short-term solution; Deforestation was caused by human development in the middle ages, and urbanisation provides the opportunity for re-forestation Could we all plant trees.  There is a lot of waste ground in cities where plants and trees could be grown, trees and plants could be grown on buildings, on roofs, beside the highway if all cars had to run on electrical power by law. Could those who live on state handouts be employed planting and tending these trees. Governments could subsidise farmers to grow trees? This would not be enough to absorb and so reduce CO2 levels unless it was implemented on a world wide scale; It is unlikely that flowers and trees would bloom on the roofs of the houses in Beijing because of the incessant smog; planting CO2 absorbing trees and plants would probably not be enough to have an impact reducing CO2 levels, unless?