Supposing all anthropogenic emissions went to zero today, we'd still keep warming almost as far as three degrees with all of the disasters and famines that entails, because there's a lag time between existing emissions and their effects.

We need massive bounty programs that pay out irrespective of nationality for every possible kind of improvement and gain to carbon capture technology if we want to prevent 90% of all land on Earth between 30°N and 30°S from slowly turning into copies of the uninhabitable stretches of the Middle East.

Global warming is much faster in the higher latitudes. It has not significantly impacted the region you mentioned much at all. Most impact has been due to intensification of natural cycles like the Indian Monsoons, the Atlantic hurricane season and El Niño, which are not really limited to that particular area of the Globe. The idea that the problem with global warming is that parts of the world will just become too hot to live seems to be mostly misguided.

I think the way to frame this is: what would happen if we burned all known fossil fuel reserves? That is the trajectory we are on.

The answer there is >6C global increase, and that would cause beyond disaster movie-level scenarios.

Anything and everything we can do to stop that is important.

Just Zeroing isn't enough, what ever efforts we put into negating it never seems to have frontpage

might not be entirely accurate:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-will-global-warming-st...

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/CO2-emissions-and-respec...

We need to print much more money!