I'm not suggesting _nothing_ be done and we carry on as usual. But there are 7.6 billion people on this planet and nearly every single one of them either has, or is working towards a modern standard of living. You can't go from 600 million people in 1700 to 7.6 billion people in 2021 without severely harming your ecosystem.
11,000% more people, and each one of them uses _far_ more resources than their 1700 equivalent. They didn't travel except by muscle or by sail, they consumed locally produced food or food imported by sail and muscle power, and the most technologically advanced good available to the average person was an oil lamp.
There isn't an electric car, reusable bag, ethically produced wool sweater, or synthetic burger that can get you back to anywhere near that kind of resource usage.
As for the dangers, I'm aware of the worst case scenarios and the best case scenarios. They're all terrible. At worst, we die out, at best we end up struggling to maintain a comfortable existence due to shortages and a fragile ecosystem while reminiscing about the good old days. But we need to look at the problem clearly and realistically and work towards feasible, realistic _mitigations_ (solutions are impossible) rather than passing nonsense populist laws like banning plastic straws or electric car subsidies and hoping the next generation figures it out.
> This is also dead wrong, a quick switch to EV will substantially reduce the amount of carbon pollution, no need for mass killings. We simply need the government too provide right incentives to switch to cleaner and less energy usage
I'm not opposed to this, and I certainly don't advocate mass killings (see above re: realistic mitigations). I do realize that the lifetime emissions of an electric car are lower than most ICE vehicles. But again, this isn't a solution. You still need a lot of infrastructure and a lot of emissions to manufacture, install, maintain, and eventually replace that infrastructure. Sticking a solar panel on every roof and a wind turbine in every neighborhood isn't going to solve the fundamental problem of "organism is using resources in an unsustainable way".
A quick, forced switch to EVs is going to win the "carbon emissions" line-graph competition so we can all virtue-signal to each other about how well our countries are doing, but it's not going to get us out of the hole we dug, even when combined with _all_ the current popular emissions reductions proposals.
