We’re not fucked. It’s just easier to believe that we are.
The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. The inhabitants of Earth have survived far worse conditions and events in the past.
The idea that humans are guaranteed to survive is very naive. If all asians and africans increase their co2 footprint to first world levels and we don't stop polluting for 100 years it could very well mean the death of all humans because of a lack of oxygen which is mostly produced by plankton.
I’m concerned by climate change and fully aware that it could and likely will be disastrous. But the reflexive attacks on indications and mere implications of silver linings is annoying. It’s easy to look up that climate has destabilized, but our capacity to withstand instability has increased more. Technology and development has made the world safer for us, in spite of climate change, and it’s not clear that we won’t be able to mitigate and withstand changes in the future.
Yes, but how many, and who. It's still an existential threat to invididuals, when you don't know what conditions that will make up that survivability. Now that it is apparent that there is the distinct possibility of people dying within our lifetimes, even if not many, it's a concern. It's basically "Evolution has decided that the time has come to select the strongest, and I don't know if I or my loved ones are strong enough."
But nobody wants to have the discussion under the conditions you specify. Because this means whatever solution is put forward
1) is limited in how much it is allowed to reduce economic activity (what point is there in saving humanity if you have to do it through famine ?)
2) is limited in how much global warming is allowed
Nobody has any such solutions, except for geoengineering, at which point humanity simply takes direct control of global climate. That means someone, probably in Washington or perhaps Brussels or Beijing, simply decides whether crops in the Sahara will work out this year or not. Are they responsible for the failed yields ? How about fuckups (which we can pretty much assume will happen) ? How about sacrificing one area to save another when they're at war ?
Also this tech is probably pretty easily weaponized.
The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. The inhabitants of Earth have survived far worse conditions and events in the past.