The reason you are wrong is that stopping (or even slowing down) climate change goes directly against the way the world economic system is set up.
Basically, to stop climate change in the next decade (which is already far too late to stop catastrophic effects, which are already beginning and will only get worse) we must significantly reduce the global economy. There is simply no way to keep growing growing the economy without also growing CO2 emissions in the near future.
And of course, global economic recession is not going to be acceptable, in an economic system predicated entirely on eternal growth (where "growing too slow" is already considered unacceptable). So, climate change action will be slow, small, and entirely too little to avoid the most catastrophic scenarios.
Better to see 10 more years of economic growth before a massive collapse, instead of 20-40 years of slow economic shrinking to a more manageable, carbon neutral world, right?
No, the economic system doesn't inherently rely upon fossil fuels. It relies upon cheap and abundant energy. If we snapped our fingers and had free clean energy on tap, that would sign the death warrant of climate change, although there may be lots of collateral damage if we don't also try to rewind the clock too.
Sure, but right now, the only source of clean and abundant energy is fossil fuels. Everything else is either much more expensive up-front (hydro, nuclear) or is extremely variable (solar, wind). Nothing other than fossil fuels can travel well (electric cars are nice, but electric trucks are unlikely to be economical, and electric cargo bots are even worse).
So, the only current solution to climate change is global economic contraction - especially in the richest nations.
Basically, to stop climate change in the next decade (which is already far too late to stop catastrophic effects, which are already beginning and will only get worse) we must significantly reduce the global economy. There is simply no way to keep growing growing the economy without also growing CO2 emissions in the near future.
And of course, global economic recession is not going to be acceptable, in an economic system predicated entirely on eternal growth (where "growing too slow" is already considered unacceptable). So, climate change action will be slow, small, and entirely too little to avoid the most catastrophic scenarios.
Better to see 10 more years of economic growth before a massive collapse, instead of 20-40 years of slow economic shrinking to a more manageable, carbon neutral world, right?