Yes it would be terribly foolhardy for us to stop polluting the atmosphere prematurely.
There are two basic modes of reducing pollution. Technological advancement, and conservation.
In the case of technological advancement, you get less pollution per unit of output as the same or lower cost. As long as capital is fairly cheap, these advances tend to propagate quickly through a competitive market.
In the case of conservation, it’s more a question of which groups of people should conserve (i.e. suffer) for this outcome, and by how much.
I'm seriously wondering why there is any reason to oppose technological progress at all. What can they possibly gain by sticking to the old technology? Who's going to benefit from something so short sighted?