Well, the issue no-one on the climate change side wants to address is that the ramifications of most of the proposed solutions are as bad as the effects of climate change itself.
If they pollute, they do so as a side-effect of misallocation - e.g. food is shipped halfway across the world not because it has to be or should be but because low fossil fuel prices make it viable; electricity has high carbon impact (e.g. UK ~0.3kg/kWh) for historical reasons; etc.
They certainly don't fly about or do anything that has no replacement at present.
A country letting things get become "too expensive" in these silly monetary coupon terms and so everyone starves would be a complete governance failure.
Then again, some countries are currently failed states in that sense; in the UK we don't care if people get enough to eat, we give them some pictures of the queen's face if they jump through a ton of hoops and hope it works out. That likely wouldn't be viable.
Im skeptical that climate change will ever make humanity extinct. Lead to highly undesirables states, yes, but extinction, no.
I think it's also quite unlikely that climate change, or even results from it, will make humans extinct. Even if climate change triggers some kind of global thermonuclear war, which I think is a small possibility, I'm pretty convinced that humans are here to stay.
Maybe not many of us, but some.
In my opinion, extinction isn't the main worry. Collapse of civilization should be what we're trying to avoid. And that is a real possibility I think.
(As an aside, Im not convinced humans are here to stay, but for very different reasons.)
I hear you, and I agree.