This is where you're mistaken - not the statement here which is correct, but the inferences you've drawn from it. Your evaluation of strategies is self-defeating.

One incorrect inference is that since China and India are unwilling to reduce their emissions, an ultimate resolution is impossible and therefore our taking unilateral steps would be pointless, a waste of resources. That's stated as fairly and objectively as possible. This kind of strategy always fails, but on the other hand if you take those steps which you know are necessary, you'll often find that you've gained leverage or capabilities against the previously insurmountable obstacles, capabilities which were unforeseen. If you refrain from measures which are essential to the solution, you will fail. If you take those measures you may succeed. Which is more logical considering the costs of failure?

The point here is that current political intransigence in no way implies that a solution is blocked. I believe that your position arises from a political calculation, not science. I don't even agree with the political calculation; I think that it's more a maneuver for advantage than an ideological refusal.