Wealth is zero-sum. We've just been ignoring the ecological impacts of our economy since the industrial revolution. I think that the true mark of wealth is the amount of high density energy you can use: Those private jets, huge homes, yachts, etc. require massive quantities of energy to use.

Should the human race decide to fight climate change, for real, then it will be one of the greatest wealth equalizers of all time: we'll all end up a good deal 'poorer' than we were before.

You're describing something, but it isn't "wealth". Or, if it is, it's useless.

And if wealth is zero-sum, how can we "all end up a good deal 'poorer' than we were before."? NB: that whole sentence seems to be missing an odd number of negations.

But here's an indicator you'll like: "Energy Intensity" is, basically, production / energy usage. This was surprisingly stable over most of the 20th century, lending some support to the gist of your objection. But, two good news: (1) it's now on a definitive downward trend, proving that thinking does produce value (yeah!). And (2) renewable energy is rising, meaning that energy usage is now decoupling from the harms you allude to (CO_2 et al).

The main problem with that energy usage is energy density.

While electric vehicles will be about, I think that personal transport, as one example, will become quite rare.

Does that make us poorer? I don't actually think so. I sincerely believe that it will enrich our lives.