It's divisive because it's not scientifically valid technical arguments. It's not science at all. It's nothing more than a reporter getting paid off to concoct debate where there is none.
If you trace this article back to it's source, you'll find the underlying peer-reviewed paper actually said the opposite of what this reporter summarized from it.
And just to be clear, this is not advocation of agenda 21 crap or carbon taxes. I'm 110% against those but that's an entirely different topic. ...one which is best discussed in a different thread. I completely agree that the MSM has their agenda and it's not in the best interests of the people but that doesn't stop the real problem.
There are other, non-collectivist solutions that actually support more free market liberty and do so at cheaper costs but you're not hearing about those either. In short, you're falling for the conspiracy that's suckering you into staying hooked on the wealth destroying fossil fuel industry.
Unfortunately, with articles like the OP, we can't seem to get to that discussion. i.e. it's divisive.