Climate Crisis: Relying of the 'Responsible' Rich or the Angry Activists?

I am intrigued, after consecutively reading articles by Bill Gates and Roman Krznaric, both recognising an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions to zero, to keep the planet viable. Multi-billionaire, Gate's article is linked to his recent book "How To Avoid a Climate Crisis Disaster: The Solutions We Have and The Breakthroughs We Need" (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/13/bill-gates-on-the-climate-crisis-i-cant-deny-being-a-rich-guy-with-an-opinion). Gates admits to 'being a rich guy with an opinion' as well as being 'an imperfect messenger'. The latter is based on his admission of 'guilty pleasures', including travelling by private plane (which he obviously has no intention of giving up). Gates topically focuses on the contributions made to the release of 'greenhouse gases' by cement-making and beef production. Even this, however, is not entirely unrelated to his commercial interests, as he has invested in a company that re-injects carbon dioxide released from limestone, back into cement, before it is used in building. Gates seems to think that, by investing in 'zero carbon technologies', he absolves himself and his family from their large carbon footprint. This is not an option for most folk (who might well have to give up some of their more limited pleasures to counter climate change). Gates also seems dismissive of the actions of young environmental activists (like Greta Thunberg) who he thinks will turn people off solving climate change. The overall impression I am left with, is that he thinks solutions should be left to multi-billionaire technocrats (who got their riches either by inheritance or by being around at the right time with the right product) and their political contacts. All the former seemingly cannot drop the 'guilty pleasure' of wanting to increase their riches. Many don't even seem to care too much if their actions add to the climate crisis. The 'guilty pleasure' of politicians is generally their obsession with their re-election prospects (many, will seemingly support any view that garners money and votes). Roman Krznaric, conversely, denigrates the 'short term thinking' of politics and business, that he thinks is 'laying waste to the planet' (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/12/future-generations-ancestors-politics-business-planet ). Krznaric is clearly of the view (like myself) that politicians are only interested in the next election. He thinks business folk are fixated on the next quarterly report to their shareholders. Krznaric suggests that these two powerful groups have 'colonised the future', effectively dumping ecological damage and technological risk, without showing any concern for future generations (those future folk currently have no power in the ballot box or the market place). Krznaric is much more positive about the contribution being made by young campaigners. He points to a US landmark case by 'Our Children's Trust', on behalf of 21 young people, that is campaigning for a safe climate and a healthy atmosphere for both the current and future generations. Krznaric notes that, from Uganda to the Netherlands, similar lawsuits against governments and businesses are being brought by or on behalf of young people, who are concerned about the climate crisis. It will be interesting to see who (technocrats or young activists) has the greater positive influence on the climate crisis.