The population isn't the actual problem though. We could cut the population in half and climate change would still post an existential threat without us converting to better technology.

incentive means a lot with regard to innovation

Most of the science fiction scenarios underestimated the potential for computing technology. As such in many ways the advances in that field have exceeded past expectations.

They under estimated the importance of innovative farming technologies and genetic engineering. As such those areas have also exceeded past expectations.

So we don't have flying cars and other goofy sci Fi **** that serves little practical purpose. We do have other innovations that were largely overlooked.

As for cleaner energy, there is already a blueprint for the types of technologies you could see becoming more prominent.

We're entirely capable of doing so. Whether we do or not will be a simple matter of what our priorities are.

I don't think our problems are a lack of technology. Our problem is that we are incapable as a species of concerted long term planning. We plan by quarters, not by decades, and I don't see that changing anytime soon, if ever, and when faced with as overwhelming a problem as the current global climate crisis or pollution I don't think we're going to offset our short-sighted wastefulness with tech band-aids.

It's possible we won't and then we're ****ed

But literally the only serious solution is in technology and regulation. It doesn't even necessarily take long term intensive planning. When we developed the computer, we weren't planning for a future dominated by computers. It grew naturally because of its inherent utility.

If the right form of energy were introduced which was clean and efficient enough, it would naturally take the place the older more dirty technology. Similarly, if carbon and/or methane trapping technology were to emerge, it would give us an even better ability to try reverse the trend of climate change.

We have already made some improvements in that regard over the last couple centuries in the richer parts of the world. Not nearly enough, but there is certainly a notable difference between the modern US vs the US during the height of industrial growth, where rivers were literally set on fire accidently because of how polluted they were.

With regard to population the only serious alternative is to kill off most of the population and revert to a sort of pre industrial agrarian system. Which, to me, is not even really preferable to human extinction via climate change.

^ Yes, I agree that a generation of single-child families should halve the world pop, bringing it to a still-worrying 3.5 billion. If that report you quote turns out to be accurate, I would applaud a reduction in world pop. I guess we have to wait and see, though I worry about various news items that indicate how some populations are deliberately manipulated to overproduce.
In Africa, systematic rape has been used as a way to subdue locals, causing a population spike. In America, the mormons are the fastest growing religion and their beliefs encourage families of 10, 20 kids.

^ This is an unusual argument; "Don't look at the big picture". Unusual, perhaps, because it's about as wise as saying, "Let's put our heads in the sand."

^ That kind of solicited immigration is, afaik, because the economy of every industrialised country is based on the desirability of endless economic growth. Big picture stuff, but a planet of limited size cannot sustain limitless growth.

This is a point that ties into Anteater's comment about improving food production. Yes, that might help short-term, but unfortunately, there is a drawback: food production generates methane and food consumption generates methane. Methane levels are set to jump to historically ( and pre-historically) high levels, quite possibly outranking CO2 as the biggest driver of global warming.

For what it's worth I consider technology to be a more serious solution than regulation tbh. Science works. We know it does. Regulation is passed by people who are not serious.

Honestly I think the situation won't lead to human extinction, just a vast change in human civilization preceded by some sort of anarchic dark age. With any luck that will partially solve the problem to at least to a manageable level by killing off a portion of the population and reducing industrial capacity.

You think the EPA is a waste of time then yea?

As for your scenario it sounds unlikely to me. The chances of maintaining the same sort of post industrial revolution lifestyle while killing off a sizable portion of humanity sounds unlikely. If anything I think it would look more like Rome after the fall. The modern infrastructure would completely collapse.

I did say a vast change. I just don't know what a fall from such a high level of civilization would look like. And the EPA probably will end up being a waste of time at the end of the day. But if they wanna try then might as well.

I think it would look rather similar to Somalia.

I mean the infrastructure would still exist in some state presumably. Somalia never even had that right?