If you take anthropogenic global warming (AGW) as given, with the dire, near world-ending consequences as stated, then the logical conclusions are direct: you either
- stop all burning (oxidation) of everything (e.g. Oil, Coal, Natural Gas, Wood, Biomass, Biofuels), and engage in a wholesale replacement of our worldwide Energy & Transportation infrastructure; or
- suffer a massive reduction in the Standard of Living of humanity at large (either because we didn't replace the energy infrastructure, or we did nothing and the world as we knew it ends as the planet fries).
Further, since this is very serious, "we're saving the whole planet" stuff, you're going to have to take military action to destroy the facilities of nations that emit mass amounts of carbon dioxide (e.g. coal-fired power plants) if they fail to comply with international "carbon emissions" restrictions. If it really is about saving the planet, that's what you must do.
Energy systems with no operational carbon dioxide emissions:
- Nuclear Energy
- Hydroelectric Power
- Geothermal Energy
- Solar Power
- Wind Energy
The last two are unsuitable for "baseline load" because they are intermittent/inconsistent (and, no, batteries aren't good enough at energy storage to make up the difference, so far; ask any Materials Science and Engineering person: energy density is hard). If we don't build lots of nuclear power plants (and probably breeder reactors to use alternative nuclear fuel), count on scenario #2 – life becomes very unpleasant. Perhaps even, "nasty, brutish, and short."
Let's leave the meat cows & methane issue aside for the moment (but a précis: bad news for carnivores).
We might be able to continue aviation with standard, liquid-fueled rocket engines replacing turbojet and turbofans, since combining hydrogen & oxygen for thrust (as the Apollo Program rockets did) results in … water. Air Travel would likely become a lot more exciting.
All told: huge costs, plus warfare, no matter what, if you accept the AGW premise.
So, where's the proof?
Sorry, "correlations" don't cut it when you're talking about changing the way humanity does things on a planetary scale. We need to see causation. Mechanism. The claimants have a very, very high burden of proof to meet, in order for all of us to be convinced to act on this as required (with the attendant high costs) to meet the putative threat. The "precautionary principle" is bullshit.
Conservatism is merely rational in the face of what is being asked of the world.
See also the Copenhagen Consensus.
Now, if it turns out that climate change is a real thing, but it is not human-caused, things go down the adaptation and/or geoengineering path: we keep our existing energy & transportation systems. We move the bits under direct threat (e.g. New Orleans; no more building cities lower than sea level, or if you do, you pay all costs associated with it without subsidies; same goes for Florida and hurricanes). Life goes on, more or less as before.