The practical choice isn't really between more and less inconvenience. The choice is between less inconvenience and nothing being done at all. It's a political problem, not just a scientific and engineering one, and any engineering approach to solve it that is not also politically viable (which is likely to be the case for anything that significantly affects quality of life for a lot of people) is not going to happen in a democracy.
If it's not politically viable to take the only routes we know of that can actually reduce our emissions as much as we need to, we've got a big damn problem.
I'm hoping the present climate disasters are at least beginning to change people's minds.
Reducing emissions as much as we need to is a ship that has already sailed. At this point, it's a balancing act between how much to disrupt the economy and quality of life now versus how much it will be disrupted later, when AGW fully kicks in. And it's a scale, so expect a lot of bickering about where the line ought to be drawn.
