For one, the climate is ALWAYS changing and a serious discussion means talking about humanity adapting. For 2, if these people were serious about actually changing the balance, we would see real changes in energy production towards geothermal, nuclear and hydroelectric. As well as serious investments into making power grids more robust, able to handle more electricity and more efficient.

Leaving aside the points above for a paragraph, the point still stands. Regardless of whether you think that we should respond to the impacts of greenhouse gas warming the climate by adaptation rather than mitigation, conducting studies of the impacts and potential modification of GHG sources (like livestock) is a serious part of any effort to engage in mitigation. You might think it's dumb to try to stop rising climate change rather than adapt to it, but if the folks who want to stop (or at least arrest) rising climate change win elections and get into power, then doing things like studying livestock isn't a foolhardy step towards pursuing those goals. It's the difference between what the government is trying to do and how efficient it is in pursuing those goals.

As for the above, any serious discussion means talking about both adapting and mitigating. Recognizing that it would probably be too expensive to stop human activity from meaningfully and materially affecting the global mean temperature, and recognizing that there certainly are some low-cost/high-benefit measures that humanity can effectively take to reduce the size of that temperature increase. IOW, it's folly to think we could stay under 1.5C, but we were able to change our emissions trajectory enough to keep us under 4C.

I agree we need to see more investments in building stuff that's necessary to accommodate a more electrified world. There are lots of other Democrats who agree, and a non-trivial part of the IRA was funding to improve the electrical transmission grid. I suspect the median Democratic voter is right on board that we need to invest in those things.