Extinction of humans is not a possible result of global warming. Such a result is only put forward by people without political or scientific understanding. Worst case global warming (as in we continue to pump out and put every bit of buried accessible CO2 that's in the ground into the atmosphere) only returns us to an age of tremendous amounts of vegetation and coastal cities being flooded. It also causes wars and massive population movements, but it does not cause extinction. It might also cause advanced civilization to revert to an earlier stage of development, but Earth cannot become a Venus-like planet or anything close to it with current levels of buried CO2.

Granted this is a very bad experiment to run, and we should not do this, but it's not an existential crisis.

Well, I assume that it is a possible result. Those wars could always escalate to a nuclear apocalypse, with a combination of famine and climate disasters picking off the survivors.

That’s a silly comic. It acts as if economic activity only benefits shareholders, not people with jobs who pay taxes which fund social programs.

The same way that a sugar tax can price out death by diabetes.

Study after study proves that people respond to price incentives. If you set a price for carbon (even less than the cost to sequester it from the atmosphere), people will reduce their output.

And there is a lot of low hanging fruit we could start with before we start ripping cars from people.

Nuclear and solar and wind power plants come to mind. Cogeneration at power plants. Reducing the amount of cattle we consume/meat tax. Carbon tax.