Civlisation will survive, in one shape or the other, but some countries could be totally screwed, others badly damaged. Its possible to imagine that political system crumbles, liberal democracy is gone, and the label is somewhat justified.
We are talking about most of bangladesh underwater and about 1 billion refugees globally in a poor scenario. Todays migration problems will pale in comparison. Many if them will die violently.
Nothing we've done so far indicates to me that we can quickly organise global rollout of hundred million automated greenhouses to people that cannot posssibly pay for them. Or to build largest damns in human history.
Even when we can afford to pay for infrastructure, in UK its taking us 40 years to build 1 line of rail, connecting two biggest cities, and its going to cost roughly as mich as the moon programm did.
What you are referring to is production-based CO2 accounting, whereas we really should be taking consumption-based CO2 metric.
No doubt progress has been made, but it's a fraction of what it should be. Uk had a chance to invest in nuclear power and didn't, has poor quality housing / insulation resulting in a lot of unnecessary CO2 emissions and money wasted on heating, and has a stupid law that banned large (read: economical) wind turbines!
It's good in the environmental seance, but what I meant was:
in the 80's Uk had a chance to invest in nuclear to become like France, almost entirely nuclear-powered. Instead the skills needed to build nuclear power-plants have been lost, and now even replacing existing few reactors is a great challenge.
Why?
Even with every worst case szenario of continous droughts and floods and loss of some islands and coastal land etc.
We could grow everything we need in (automated) greenhouses.
Only if the transistion chaos leads to all out nuclear war, but that is not really a fixed thing.