So start planning out how to change. I'd look at:

• food: changing what you eat is cheap, but may not have the biggest impact
• home heating & cooling: got a heat pump yet? Are you in an older uninsulated building?
• home electric supply: can you install solar panels, buy from a community solar organization, get your utility to supply zero-emissions electricity?
• transportation: Can you bike? ebike? Use mass transit? Change to an electric car?
• politics: which political parties where you are can be pushed to do the right thing? What levers do you and the people around you have to push them?

Per the complaint

The actual controversy lies in: (1) whether Defendants have burdened Children with a lifetime of hardship in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; (2) whether Children are a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause; (3) whether EPA has discriminated against Plaintiffs, as part of the protected class of Children, in allowing the injurious climate pollution in violation of the Equal Protection Clause; (4) whether the injurious climate pollution sanctioned and systematically allowed by EPA and the United States federal government rises to a substantive due process violation; and (5) whether EPA has exceeded its statutorily delegated authority in violation of the Constitution. The resolution of these actual controversies involves questions of scientific evidence and a factual record and cannot be decided merely as a matter of law

Not really. Most people want to stick around.

I recommend working to change how people interact with the world, rather than trying to get rid of people.

Lone wolf attacks on electrical substations doesn't get you very far. The Nazis have been trying it in the US on the theory that it would start a race war and they could kill al lthe nonwhites and nonhetrosexuals. It didn't do much.

Actually taking meaningful sabotage action which is effective at cutting fossil fuel use requires a bunch of expertise and coordination which simply doesn't exist in the environmentalist movement right now.

There is no environmentalist army.

I'm aware that some places are trying to do real damage. The huge drop in the costs of wind and solar, combined with improvements in the technologies for electrification mean that there are now powerful economic incentives to get off fossil fuels. Those are going to limit their use going forward.

We're likely on track to an end to increasing use already. It's that we need a full phase-out, not just a gradual decline in use.

A lot of what's going on is the people working on decarbonization trying to sell what they're doing on the sidelines of the negotiation.

That's a good thing.

Largely not because the petroleum monarchies have the ability to block text they don't like.

27 years is a long time. Full replacement or retrofit is doable in that kind of time.

Yes, but it would be really nice to stabilize temperatures without killing the bulk of the human population

Pretty much what happens when you let a petrostate host and give oil-dependent monarchs veto power over the text