I'd bet a dollar that the delta in total-life-cycle emissions for replacing every modified high-performance car with a crapwagon (kei car, Prius, etc...) wouldn

I'd bet a dollar that the delta in total-life-cycle emissions for replacing every modified high-performance car with a crapwagon (kei car, Prius, etc...) wouldn't even be a rounding error in humanity's climate change footprint. Hell, building a container ship powered by an old Soviet nuclear reactor instead of bunker fuel would probably be a greener use of civilization's available time and manpower. Secondly....I don't fear climate change. Humans are adaptable apex predators. It might stymie our progress up the Kardashev scale, but I guess that's the question: Which is a more difficult resource problem to solve: having 10 billion marginally-productive mouths to feed while maintaining a high-tech economy, or having only 1 billion mouths to feed but being forced to recreate a shattered tech base from scratch with almost-no easily accessible energy deposits left?