We're not all going to make it.

I mean, ok, sure, one birth is one death; life has ending.

There's still this concept of excess deaths, people dying where they wouldn't have if something had been different.  It gets applied to things like air pollution (not less than ten thousand a year in Ontario) or asbestos, and sometimes influences policy.

One reason, if you're an existing plutocrat, to want very much that there should be no electric surface transport revolution whatsoever is that you can keep the studies from being done in the present, but it's nigh-impossible to keep people from finding the correlations after the thing stops.  This is what happened with leaded gasoline (and hasn't happened with non-stick cookware coatings based on fluorine compounds); if you stop, the harm stops, too, and becomes obvious.

Switching to electric surface transport improves air quality, and people are going to notice.  They might even notice the consistent paucity of studies for such a long time, too, and reach conclusions.  One of the obvious conclusions is that pretty much all of the "lifestyle" issues around health are noise; we're living in a high volume varied flow of industrial effluent.  This is relentlessly ignored in favour of magical thinking around individual control.  (The vaccine not only doesn't cause autism, there isn't anything you as an individual can do about the rate of autism.  That second part gets missed; people are medium-desperate for a world view in which their personal decisions control their specific lives, and this is utter nonsense.)

But!

We're headed into a major recession, mostly because various political actors have decided to break the mechanisms of international trade but also because the economy goes right on doing the wrong things in the wrong way.  (You don't care about price, you care about value, and you don't want to try to do anything for value if the economy is structured to concentrate money.  That's roughly equivalent to building an irrigation system using criteria to maximize the size of holding ponds.)

It takes a long time to come out of recessions these days; it's not like everybody's actually recovered from 2008 here in 2019.  In 2029, it'll be obvious agriculture is in terrible trouble.  (That was obvious in 2009, and is certainly obvious today in 2019; most farmers have side jobs to subsidize their farming hobby.  Pretty much none of them have adequate capital to consider doing anything different.  Then we get into the "slather the landscape with bioaccumulating and persistent toxins for yield" aspects of the system.)

You got any confidence that the present crop of politicians has a plan for addressing a persistent recession during a period of crop failures, actual dearth -- I think the "we might have to eat ugly fruit" folks are charmingly naive -- and in the awareness that the available infrastructure is all wrong and failing under the hammer of the rain?  That the "you know, it'll get lethally hot here sooner than anybody emotionally expects" projections will result in orderly migration, useful infrastructure, or effective planning?

I certainly don't.

Given those things, yeah, we're not all going to make it.

It matters a lot how we don't all make it.  "Kill everyone who might compete for resources" is better understood as "if we get the skills pool small enough, fast enough, we guarantee human extinction".  (Which is about what you'd expect from a death cult, really.  Even if it's a death cult with peculiar habits of rationalization.)

Now's not the best time -- it turns out sometime in the 1970s would have been the best time -- to be thinking about this, but it's the time we have.  What do you want to happen when it gets obvious we're not all going to make it?