If you live in a place with geothermal energy its not surprising that you have cheap energy. Otherwise, we've already invested a lot in making buildings more energy efficient, but heating is simply very energy-intensive. Commuting by bike might work for single young urban professionals, but not for people with families. We know what a society without the motor car looks like - it looks like almost every society in history, where people either lived in villages or extremely cramped cities. In brief, most visions of ecologically-friendly future seriously underestimate the value of cheap energy and personal transport.

As for the effects of climate change, they look intimidating as a whole - when you look at each item individually, they are unpleasant but manageable. Humans have been dealing with the weather for millennia, after all.

> Stronger storms, drought

These happen routinely now. Yes, it would be preferable to have less storms and drought, but we know how to handle them.

> the displacement of peoples

In the last decade the Chinese have built scores of new cities across the third world - it's not that hard for people to move.

> an ensuing refugee crisis as their crops fail and water supplies dwindle

We grow crops in many different climates now. Crop failures happen now in poor countries with bad infrastructure and management. Societies with sufficient capital and technology can adapt to almost any climate. (In extreme climates, with desalination plants and hydroponics - or people could just move).

> Maintaining the civilisation we built at the cost of the natural world we inherited isn't fantastic

This is really the crux of the issue - should the standard of value be maximising human flourishing, or minimising human impact?