> a few poor peoples' ability to eat or stay warm is nothing in the face of the climate crisis.

Or maybe, in such a case, the people who have actually been consuming (and emitting) like there is no tomorrow all these decades should make substantial adjustments to their lifestyle (i.e. pay more taxes), so that the people who have been consuming nothing can eat. Sounds a bit more reasonable to me. And we are not talking about a few people, especially if you are referring to the whole world.

Actually, for a brief moment I thought you were joking.

It was in fact extreme sarcasm

>If we don't switch solely to solar and wind worldwide in the next ten years there's going to be an apocalyptic ecological event.

Well, being as how there's 0% probability of us ending fossil fuel usage in that time, I guess we'll put your prediction to the test. Personally, I don't see it happening...

Fossil fuel usage will end itself once other more convenient energy sources become relevant. You can't possibly suggest leaving vulnerable people without shelter, heat or food because there's an impending apocalypse brewing. Fossil fuels be banned sounds like a quote from the nutcake realm. You're probably using ICE engines for transportation, gas and electricity for indoor lighting and heating like everybody else. Imagine if these were turned off for your own good and the survival of modern society.