Is the preferred term not 'climate change'? I think the response is a zero-sum game. If the rest of the world cuts their emissions whilst, say China, refuses to, then China benefits from both the limited effects of climate change and economically, as she doesn't have to implement costly measures. The opposite is true for the rest of the world.
So, whilst countries sign up to this, it will be interesting to see if they implement it.
As for the growing population, referred to above, that's been understood for a long time. Our current capitalist model is predicated upon continued growth of GDP, and this is why there needs to be a GREAT RESET. Even if, what @AlbionSaint states is correct, and our superiors really do want us to eat insects and live in tiny apartments, etc - if the planet really is on a precipice, as claimed, then surely that couldn't be implemented quickly enough to save us?
Tin foil hat time: could that be what the lockdowns were really about? That's not to say Covid isn't real, but would our superiors really care if we lost one percent of (arguably) some of the least productive people in society? Care enough to damage the economy?
Anyone who knows the history of the Troubles will realise that the human cost wasn't what really brought the UK government to the negotiating table. It was the bombing of the Financial District...