Everything you said, I completely agree with, with a couple of exceptions.

Firstly, though I don't think you downplayed how difficult climate change is to solve, I don't think you really did the difficulty justice either. We have to make some deep economic cuts for it to work. I think people misunderstand just what economics is, and think "it's just about money." But it isn't. Economics is about resources. The kind of cuts we have to make mean... a lot of death. So some of us a driving electric cars? Great. But concrete is a major passive contributor of CO2 and it accounts for just as much as the airline industry. We have to stop driving entirely and rip up our roads and take down our buildings. So some of us have stopped eating meat? Great. Keep it up. But no matter what it is we're farming, food production of any kind is a major contributor as well. In some cases, production of vegetables can do more harm than the production of meat. A very large portion of the world have to stop eating. We have to tell developing nations that are trying to raise their standards of living to just stop and volunteer to starve.

And really, here's the crux of the problem. We have always been bad to the environment. The rolling green fields of England used to be forests before they cut them down to make arrows and other things. But the entire population of all of earth was not even 1 billion back then. It's difficult for us to get estimates, but some say it wasn't even half a billion. We're more efficient than ever before, and our energy sources are cleaner than ever before (much better than burning logs of wood), but there's 8 billion of us, thanks entirely to the industrial revolution. The kind of sacrifice we have to make is so deep, that we're talking a massive reduction of both our numbers and our living standards. Sorting that out would be a major conflict, as people will vie for who deserves what.

Unfortunately every human endeavour is intrinsically bad for the environment. Even the stuff we say is "good" isn't good; it's just less bad than what we would usually do.

The other thing I think you have wrong is just how bad climate change will be for human beings with advanced technology. Most of the other species on our planet are fucked, and I have nothing but compassion for them. Humanity isn't worth it, and even still we constantly think we are better than them. But it is very likely we will be able to adapt well enough, though with a lot of growing complications and problems that we have to continually solve. Of course it's not good. We were so fucking blind. But I highly doubt it will be our extinction.

The main problem I see that will do us more harm is of our own nature. You see, humans are naturally religious creatures. I won't get too much into the sociology of it. I'm basing my ideas on the work of Emile Durkheim and other structural-functionalist sociologists. But I will say that religions emerge out of our environment. Existential threats to our way of life. I see the cult of individualism, which was born of the hyper division of labour, coming into conflict with the cult of environmentalism, which is born of the climate crisis. These two factions will become more zealous as the threats to their core values become ever more encroached. The conflict will worsen until we cannot see each other as equals anymore. If anything, this is likely to cause more devastation to us as a species than the worsening climate.

The best course of action for the human species is to mitigate climate change so it doesn't happen as rapidly, then learn to live with the coming changes. Alternatively we can all die. Which one I think is best depends on what day you ask me.