I'm anywhere between A and E, in different ways. There's a massive difference between A-E and 1-5 though, they shouldn't even be on the same chart.
As for A, thing's aren't getting better, they're not even getting less worse yet, every year the world adds on more and more emissions and even during covid in 2020 where the world practically stopped, we still only rewound emissions by 5 years.
As for B, we can avoid the worse case scenarios, but what are the worse case scenarios, a 10m sea level rise? 2 degrees gets us about a 1m rise by 2100 I think, the world might be able to handle that to some expensive degree, but the change in temperature for crops and wild weather will be much worse.
C is a practical certainly, albeit hopefully it will be very slow, giving people a chance.
D it's not just we, it's the world, but we need to be setting an example, seeing as we've been doing damage for longer than most others.
E The Uk is possibly not going to be "as ****ed", or shouldn't be as we're rich, but a lot of the world is in big trouble. Although saying that, if we keep electing governments favouring the rich at the expense of the poor then 95% are going to be in big trouble. Climate change might actually kill off far right thinking, when reality starts to bite, so maybe the wealth will get shared to some degree.
Assuming we can't slow/ reverse climate change before it's too late (which I don't think we can for 2 degrees/1m sea level rise), we (as in the UK, even as an island) could engineer a solution so that most places don't flood and we relocate those in areas which are not viable to save, but it's not just about us. We would likely need another football stadium location mind, but that's a first world problem.
There are probably a billion people who would be absolutely screwed elsewhere in the world but I think it would happen over a long enough time period where they could be supported, if the ROW decided to support them. The ROW should support them mind, as it's the ROW gained development from fossil fuel use, which helped them grow, which has largely caused this mess.
The development of Asian superpowers with much, much larger populations than USA or Europe etc is a ticking time bomb, but it's a bit difficult to tell them to stunt their growth by ploughing into green schemes.
Although saying that, spending money on long term gains is a good investment. China needs to be building something to keep the economy ticking, which is why they ended up building way too many houses/ accommodation buildings etc, which are empty. This is probably also the reason why China has already built more solar than the next 5 nations combined, and China's not even seen as "green". They're adding on more capacity per year, than the USA has ever done in total, for example.
Even with the greatest will in the world, from the rich nations, the poor have no chance of fully going green, or enough to stay below the 2 degree target, so unless the rich ones are paying for the poor ones then I think we're heading for trouble and the poor ones disaster.
I'm starting to think we've now lost the battle, or need to be spending money on preparing for that, whilst the ROW catches up with green energy. I still think we may as well get a full green grid though, as it's by far the cheapest source of energy for us and we could be independent with that (but it's not for the whole world). Ironically enough, the weather getting worse will probably improve our wind output.
It's odd though, I've met lots of people who talk of climate change more like global warming like it's going to warm the uk, so we get better weather, when in reality it just means far worse storms/ floods, stopping of the AMOC and us probably entering a very cold period for a few hundred years at least.
To stop 2 degrees, we need to reverse this graph back to probably 1950's levels, within a decade, it's not possible, we will be lucky to halve it within 20 years, but even then it's the same output as the 80's (which is still extremely bad).