I don’t see why this distinction changes anything. Gluing your head to an old painting is ridiculous and counterproductive either way.
If someone believes the solution to climate change is either fewer humans, or less human activity, there are certainly constructive actions they could take.
Fortunately we don’t live in a society where we get to dictate who is in the conversation. We have to have conversations with them and spread the good word of humanity.
I don’t think many of these people understand our planet is dying regardless of humans. 75% of all life on earth is behind us IIUC. Life has been here for 4Bn years, we have another 500m to 800m left in our carbon cycle before it grinds to a halt.
This planet is heading towards a complete extinction event. Unless life manages to colonize other planets, finds a way to artificially maintain the carbon cycle, or replaces the carbon cycle, all life on earth is going to die relatively soon.
Humans are our best shot at accomplishing that imo. I don’t see any other species close enough to figuring that out on these timelines. Stopping the wheel of progress for humans dooms this planet to certain death.
You see this split in the movement around extinction. Folks will shame humans for causing an animal to go extinct while simultaneously coming out in opposition to re-introducing extinct animals to their ecosystem through genetic research (I.e the Wholly Mammoth project).
I’d sum up the split as: one group wants to do something about it. The other wants humans to “just stop.”
Your list of solutions only work for the former group.