Exactly why would anyone believe this? Half your words are a detailed explanation why meeting those goals poses a great risk to the economic well-being of billions. Wouldn’t it be much better to adapt to the effects of climate change as they develop while also implementing minimally disruptive CO2 reduction measures ? This approach would include building on higher ground, increasing aquaculture, promoting wetlands, adopting better land use policies, eliminating perverse incentive subsidies in government flood insurance, switching to crops that absorb more CO2, building a water- borne infrastructure in some areas (think Venice), and so on.
The climate is changing. This has been true for 4 billion years. More recently, only 15,000 years ago, the world was in an Ice Age. You could walk from Siberia to Alaska. Glaciers half a mile high covered Boston. Then the temperature rose by 5 degrees Celsius more than the change you worry will bring an end to the world. Somehow, amazingly, our recent ancestors, took that as an opportunity to develop civilizations. Maybe more CO2 is an opportunity for us to grow more plants and feed more people. Even now it is a few degrees colder than the Middle Age Warming period, when Europe and many other areas did pretty well with agriculture. There was the Little Ice Age in between and we have warmed up since then.
Thank you for the well- written article that highlighted major trends and key details. Perhaps in a future piece you could discuss whether meeting Paris Agreement CO2 reduction goals is really necessary in the first place, especially in light of alternative strategies.