If you agree with the premise and logic, but simply dislike the conclusion, I really don't know what to tell you.
There is nothing specific to provide you with because you haven’t presented any specific points in the first place. You want to shutdown energy production from fossil fuels. That would be extremely immoral if you think about the consequences.
Edit: Responding to the comment below, you're told lies: https://www.humanprogress.org/the-collapse-of-climate-relate...
Edit: Responding to dTal below - You can't just shut down fossil fuels without killing millions, not to mention complete loss of freedom, our country and everything it stands for. We both have same goals to get rid of fossil fuels, but I disagree with "plenty of alternatives exist". The only alternative we have is nuclear power. That's not looking good. The same environmentalists that want to solve climate change are also against nuclear power, and against any solution to climate change. They want you to not have kids – that's the quiet part. They're also hypocrites. There is no objectivity to how much decarbonization is acceptable, the end goal is to eliminate you. It's a cult.
I'll assume the figures in that article are true, but it's missing the point: people aren't talking about current deaths, but about future deaths. Climate change has the potential to globally upset weather patterns in such a way that compensating will be hard, and/or climate change will make entire areas unviable for habitation resulting in large migrations (which, historically, have been very disruptive). All of this is substantially different than "number of hurricane deaths of 1920 vs. 2021".
Furthermore, there are also examples where intervention did prevent famine, for example rationing during the second world war in some countries, and I'm sure there are more examples. But there are no dramatic "The famine of 1897 that didn't happen because of effective government measures" Wikipedia pages. You can "prove" anything by linking to some example where things spectacularly failed, but that doesn't really "prove" anything, certainly not for the generic case of all "government interventions".
And look, shutting off all fossil fuels from one day to the next would of course be sheer lunacy. But no one is really argueing for that, and what they are argueing for is replacing oil and other fossil fuels, ASAP.
If $thing you do affects only you: do whatever you want! Go nuts! If $thing you do affects a substantial number of other people: maybe we need to ensure this doesn't result in you imposing your $thing on the rest of us? These sort of things aren't simple: your freedom to play music at 4am interrupts my freedom to sleep at night.
If we do what you are suggesting, half the world population will starve to death.
I'm not saying that you're advocating doing nothing, nor am I supporting totalitarian/fascism. Just that at some point there will be decisions forced upon people; to choose who will live.
Maybe that's part of the general apathy? Do people subconsciously think that they'll be saved and those "others" will be sacrificed?
The rich don't care. They expect to be buffered by their ill-gotten gains.
They may be right.
The only problem is trucks, diesel trains, tractors and some ships. Ships could just go the old slow way. Diesel trains have electric replacements, trucks and tractors are hard though mostly due to sheer numbers. Then we have airplanes, big ones have no replacement but we can live without them. The pharmaceuticals we can make from biomaterials, no serious mining. Industrial heat might be a problem for a hot moment but there are some possibilities.
Water however is the key issue we will face and cannot really go around.
I'd be happy to be wrong about this!
If you would prefer, an alternative is that the (US) Gov't could 1. take over the oil companies 2. Raise the price of oil 3. Force the "Free market" that everyone's so proud of to start dealing with Oil as if there is actual scarcity for it.
If they did that tomorrow, I suspect they could stop a number of the worst polluters (businesses), and make everyone actually start working for the goal of "zero emissions".
People would hate this, and people would complain about the gov't overstepping, but the oil companies aren't going to start doing this out of the goodness of their hearts as long as they're making money hand-over-fist like they are.
Given enough energy, and raw feedstock matter, we can make anything we need. Nuclear power gets us all the energy we need. Matter can simply be recycled in closed loops. The nitrogen for fertilizer we currently get from fossil fuels currently ends up in our sewage, and from there to places it shouldn't be like the ocean, causing huge problems like algae blooms. Recycle that, and you've solved another problem!
It's all about closing the loops.
We really do not need much concrete or steel. What we need is bioplastics, biocomposites, wood, fused sand and a lot of farming practice changes. Some breakthrough in water desalination or cleanup. A lot of people will have to move.
There's no way around it now.
(I feel confident in saying that nothing major has changed about the sun in the last 2000 years because that's not the time scale these things happen on).
The sun has been the same brightness for human history. It doesn't make it more difficult than the problem we had 50 years ago.
Please do not hide your tactics and by all means keep up the batshitcrazy loudness of your plans. The more you yell and scream and introduce more radical planning -- the more the average person will grow tired of them and end up shutting you all out.
Ideologies aside we agree on nuclear energy.
You know that, when productivity goes down, people that can barely survive already will die. Right?
If you really want to make changes it seems to me that the best place to put effort would be pro nuclear rather than cutting industry to the ground. Serious investment in thorium seems a good place to start.
Fossil carbon extraction needs to be halted. Worldwide. Close the coal mines, shut down the oil rigs.
Everything else is just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's very, very simple: at the beginning of the Paleozoic era, atmospheric carbon was 20x higher than today, a level that the current biosphere cannot survive in. Gradually, over the next few hundred million years, that carbon was sequestered into the ground. We are now digging it back up and burning it, thus returning it to the atmosphere, within a span of decades. You can talk about LED lightbulbs and carbon credits till the cows come home, but the only thing that can halt this is preventing people from burning carbon that came from the ground - and the only way to stop that is to ban its extraction.
"But what will we do for energy?" Lots of things. We have options. Personally I'm a fan of the magic green rocks that give energy forever.
"But how will we power things that need high energy density / make plastics / lubricate my e-bike chain etc" - Oil. We can make it from anything carbon based. It's not even hard. We just have to stop digging it up and burning it.