But you seem to be arguing that it'd be pointless in the same way that pressing the break in the immediate moment before a car accident is futile. Sure it might not help a lot, but I'd argue it's still the right call and will rarely make the situation worse.
Whether it's pointless or not is up for debate. Your brake pressing analogy could be slightly off. Rather than being in the moment before the car accident, we could be in the moment just after driving off of a cliff. In that case, brake pressing is indeed futile. But I think the system we're in is too complex to know for sure, and I'm all for people wanting to say that they are interested in doing anything they can. I'm also all for people actually taking action rather than just saying they are on board with the idea. Also...just do nothing if that's your preference.
I believe you misunderstood the quote. "Would only get worse" is a set phrase that means getting worse is inevitable. The "only" means that no other outcome is possible. It's sort of an intensified version of "would get worse" in that it's more definite.
So "it would only get worse if the world continues to burn planet-heating fossil fuels" means that if we continue burning these fuels, there is no chance we will avoid the consequences. It does not mean that the only way to have the problem is to keep burning fossil fuels.
We could barely lock down for a pandemic. Imagine telling someone (or entire winter cities) they will likely freeze to death today to reduce emissions.
That is not comparable to hitting the breaks to lessen a crash.
That's why I said that's not an option. Stopping fossil fuels would be the same as stopping the car instantaneously - it would be a brand new car crash.
>> but I'd argue it's still the right call and will rarely make the situation worse.
That statement confused me. I don't understand your position then.