You're projecting. I have no desire to govern other people or in any way restrict their ability to do what they think is best for themselves. That's what climate alarmists do.
Deaths from natural disasters have been dramatically decreasing for decades. The number of people we can feed on less land has been increasing for decades. The ability of humans to move resources from one place to another has been increasing for centuries. Some people choose to live in warm and dry places rather than cold and damp places.
You discount the ability of the planet to respond to feedback and achieve balance, and the ability of humans to adapt. You don't even need international cabals of authoritarian collectivists to live a happy life.
Would you prefer to keep them outside your borders or let them in if push comes to shove, and poor countries can't adapt?
Or is suddenly "they are poor but happy" an acceptable imagined outcome for you, despite your belief that fossil fuels will keep ushering this era of prosperity so using them is morally the right choice?
Deaths from natural disasters have been dramatically decreasing for decades. The number of people we can feed on less land has been increasing for decades. The ability of humans to move resources from one place to another has been increasing for centuries. Some people choose to live in warm and dry places rather than cold and damp places.
You discount the ability of the planet to respond to feedback and achieve balance, and the ability of humans to adapt. You don't even need international cabals of authoritarian collectivists to live a happy life.