Even if the choice was between quality of life now and addressing climate change you haven't made a convincing argument for why maintaining peoples quality of l

Even if the choice was between quality of life now and addressing climate change you haven't made a convincing argument for why maintaining peoples quality of life as it is now is worth risking a mass extinction event in the future. That being said I see no reason why doing any of the things mainstream scientists and economists are calling for would in any way diminish anyone's quality of life. If anything it will improve quality of life at the very least by reducing air pollution and it will prevent drastic reductions in quality of life in the coming decades from the effects of unchecked global warming. I really don't know where this crap even comes from. Like we get x amount of energy from fossil fuels. Therefore we must reduce energy usage by that much? Do you think that's what we're advocating for?