And I will remind you of the elephant in the room. There is an industry, the fossil fuel industry, that would literally lose trillions of dollars if we move away from fossil fuels
I won't argue that energy companies will emphatically defend whatever energy they provide and however they provide it. But:
I disagree, by the way, with your statement that all solutions would require fundamental restructuring of the global economy.
But it will. If you live in the suburbs, you require a car to go places. It's all well and good to say "well, move to where you don't need a car," but now you're down a rabbit hole of property tax bases, public education, social mobility, and employment in infrastructure industries. These are not trivial.
It also doesn't address container ships. These have a pretty impressive carbon footprint, not to mention ocean pollution, but without these monsters you are now down a rabbit hole of local production and the limitations therein. Not to mention taxes and tariffs.
CO2 is the price we currently pay for cheap, reliable energy. I'm very much on board with energy efficiency, and if we could flip a switch and have carbon neutral energy, woo hoo, let's do that. But switching has costs. These costs cannot be handwaved away by talking about the nefarious Big Oil. Money spent on migrating energy infrastructure from one to another are monies not spent on other priorities. It seems like a very basic economic concept--resources are finite, while demand is infinite--but it doesn't seem to be addressed at all. Which of your other pet projects would you kill in order to fund CO2 neutral measures?