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.