Not the only way.

Driving less is much more effective than switching to electric vehicles.

Right, but for the remainder of our lifetimes there will be hundreds of millions of cars on the road. Nothing will change that. What we can change is the type of car we use, which requires the energy intensive process of building and distributing these cars.

Incremental solutions are much easier to implement.

True, but they run the risk of taking too long when there are targets in force that require more radical change. That said, what often happens is that incremental change reaches a tipping point where either the demand or supply side causes a step change.

Making and distributing fewer things could also slow climate change.

Mass suicides or nuking half the world's population would probably slow climate change too, but for some reason none of those is considered a reasonable solution.

Mass death is not equivalent to the idea of producing fewer products and reusing existing ones. Many approaches can be used at once and reuse is a legitimate one.

Actually from all technologies energy production has been the best predictor of number of people living on Earth, so I believe many people would die if those cars weren't distributed to save energy.

Most cars in the world can be replaced with public transport, which is 3 - 20 times more efficient, depending on mode of use.

The problem with that is that it's extremely political, it can't be done by a private company.

For example when I was living in Switzerland I used public transport because I was lazy to use a car, as it's so much more hassle.

I went to Mountain View, California to a business trip, and wanted to do the same thing (as I was used to public transport), and I couldn't even find a way to go to a supermarket, as the closest one to my corp apartment was 40 minutes walk away :(

I decided to rent a car because the closest car rental was closer than a place to eat at...as a European it sounds crazy, but it's true.

The goal of climate change mitigation is harm reduction. Your solution needlessly increases harm.

You really compared reducing production and consumption to mass suicide or nuclear war, ok.