They’ve been doing that the entire time, the problem is that “inevitable” has connotations that it’s too late to do anything. Whereas, yes, it’s too late to prevent entirely, but the more action we take now the worse the catastrophe will be

I think a lot of people's problem (or at least mine) is that it's not clear exactly what "catastrophe" means, despite following climate news pretty closely. I've heard some descriptions of "human species ending event", but unless we get complete runaway feedback loops that turn our planet to Venus (which, my understanding is that most scientists find this extremely unlikely), that shouldn't really happen.

My understanding is that coastal areas (where most people currently live) are generally fucked, but I don't really have a good understanding of what the difference is between 2C diff and, say, 3C diff. Anyone have links to some good, non-sensational estimates?

The real short term problem if we get to those levels is migration and war. That will compound any intrinsic environmental stresses, especially if nukes fly. There are several nuclear armed countries in drought zones.

That would then probably lead to continued emissions, as any international effort to reduce them would break down, and people would take what advantage they could in a more tooth and nail world.

Look for the comment "Define "immediate"?" by "ForHackernews"