Yes, but how many, and who. It's still an existential threat to invididuals, when you don't know what conditions that will make up that survivability. Now that it is apparent that there is the distinct possibility of people dying within our lifetimes, even if not many, it's a concern. It's basically "Evolution has decided that the time has come to select the strongest, and I don't know if I or my loved ones are strong enough."
1) is limited in how much it is allowed to reduce economic activity (what point is there in saving humanity if you have to do it through famine ?)
2) is limited in how much global warming is allowed
Nobody has any such solutions, except for geoengineering, at which point humanity simply takes direct control of global climate. That means someone, probably in Washington or perhaps Brussels or Beijing, simply decides whether crops in the Sahara will work out this year or not. Are they responsible for the failed yields ? How about fuckups (which we can pretty much assume will happen) ? How about sacrificing one area to save another when they're at war ?
Also this tech is probably pretty easily weaponized.
Yeah, let's just wait and see what happens...
>Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here.
Yeah, just a couple billions or so less, and dying / living horribly... But who cares, you give some, you get some, right?
The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. The inhabitants of Earth have survived far worse conditions and events in the past.