This article contains two statements I find particularly perplexing.
1. "Thus, reducing carbon emissions won’t have a visible impact soon. (Don’t get me wrong, carbon reduction still has to be the core of climate action. But the fact that we likely won’t grasp anything from the cutback makes this even more challenging.)"
2. "If we don’t act, our society will collapse like a house of cards. " but on the other hand: "Individual action won’t stop climate change, but it’s still crucial"
Having established that a particular course of action will have no impact on the perceived problem, you still maintain that we make a concerted effort to pursue that action.
You say you have specialized in sustainability. But you seem to have made no effort at all in learning the basics of economics.
Why, you might think, should I learn about spending money? How does that help in the pursuit of sustainability?
Because economics is much more than an examination of how and why people spend money. Economics examines how we make good decisions on everything we do that involves trade-offs. And trade-offs are an aspect of almost everything we do, including "save-the-planet" efforts.
One of the basic tenets of economic thinking is that there is not an unlimited amount of anything. So the effort we make, and the resources we spend, on a futile activity is effort and resources that is no longer available for more effective activities.
Which means that, once an activity is determined to be ultimately futile, rather than continue to push that activity as critical, ban the activity and use the time and effort for activities that, you know, actually produce results.