> But the changes we actually need run much deeper, and they would directly impact our lifestyle, because our current one is not sustainable. In exactly what s

> But the changes we actually need run much deeper, and they would directly impact our lifestyle, because our current one is not sustainable. In exactly what sense is our current lifestyle not sustainable? The way you've stated the assumption it's analogous to arguing that we can't feed billions of humans. That's precisely the Malthusian argument, which was wrong. Agricultural productivity has increased by orders of magnitude in the last couple of centuries. I'm not arguing against solving climate change. But the "we have to change everything" formulation is very limiting. In fact, I think it's pretty much a guarantee that we'll experience catastrophic effects.