In fact I do not have a very strong opinion on climate change. Temperatures seem to be rising and for me as an individual it is almost impossible to make an analysis that is truly better than what the climate scientists do. But I will argue that anyways none of that matters.
Let us first look at the relation between a virus and a host. For this there are only few game theoretical outcomes.
source
Equilibrium
The host and the virus reach a steady state and live in permanent coexistence. Neither the numbers of the virus grow, nor is the host really sick. A good example of this is herpes, where the virus survives in an inactive stage until the eventual death of the host from other reasons.
The Host Wins
In this case the host has access to efficient defences and manages to eliminate the virus. Most non-lethal infections fall in this category.
The Virus 'Wins'
The virus spreads uncontrolled over the host, eventually killing it. Then once the host is dead, the virus is also set up to die.
Most of these infections are still evolving and not perfectly adapted yet. The virus does normally not want to kill the host, but evolving this way is difficult (and relies on the likelihood too spread to new hosts before the old host dies). One example is ebola that normally infects bats, where it is not particularly dangerous. It is not made to infect humans and when it does it causes far to serious symptoms that often lead to a quick death of the host.
From the point of view of the earth, humans (and all other living species) are somewhat like a virus. They live on their host and deeply change it. So far we have been sliding between quasi-static equilibria on timescales much larger than a human life. Plants have transformed the atmosphere, a diverse bio-system has developed around them. With a competitive natural balance that has ensured a relatively stable equilibrium between all the species.
But something fundamentally changed a few hundred years ago. Human technology has reached the point where it evolves on scales much shorter than a human lifetime. We know that the previous balance has been destroyed just from looking at the world population. It shows an exponential curve and nothing in equilibrium can grow like this.
Using the virus analogy, humans were living in a metastable equilibrium with their host but then they mutated and become something entirely different. We have left the stable phase and are spreading uncontrolled over our host.
Just as for a virus there are only few options on how this experiment can end:
A New Equilibrium
We might find a new equilibrium. I find this very unlikely and if so it will most likely be a dystopia. A necessary condition for such an equilibrium is a stagnating or more likely massively declining global population. Maybe we pollute the earth soo much that we can no longer thrive and few humans continue to exist in a miserable state. Probably high levels of nuclear fallout would be involved. And this change has to come so quick that we cannot find technological solutions, probably because we are catapulted back into stone age.
The Host Kills Us
Again I think this is not very likely. The earth is not an active species trying to fight us to stay healthy. If we kill ourselves we likely kill all life on earth. Especially since humans with technology are one of the most adaptive species known.
We Kill The Host
This is one of the very likely outcomes. Each exponential growth has to end and there is no reason to assume a it will end gracefully. I am not convinced that the climate will kill us all, but pollution, nuclear waste, pesticides or many other things that we don't even know about yet and that will bite us a few years down the line.
The big problem is that evolution and survival of the fittest does not select based on future sustainability. It is just based on current success and lets species run directly into their doom.
Finding A New Host
There is another option, something very natural for a virus, but for more difficult for us.
If we think that survival of humans is something that is even worthwhile, then this seems to be the only hope. Find a new planet and burn out this one. Then rinse and repeat. Given the size of our galaxy this should put the end of humans back for many many generations.
I do hope that I am wrong and that there are other futures. But what if we really have left the natural track and there are only few dystopian futures left for us.
There I have no idea. But it is important to be a realist. We might be able to stop climate change, but we cannot solve the human problem. Something else will kill us a few years later. And if there is a real solution, how could it not be dystopian relying on billions of people dying? And who will implement it given human corruption. Is such a solution even possible given our limited human nature?
The idea that we can save this world just by separating the trash is just a sad illusion. It only works in ideology if you are in complete denial of our reality and the path humanity is on. So what do we do? Do we just ignore it all? I honestly don't know either. Just care about peaceful living in our local setting? A place where we do at least have some power and can make things better? Is it even bad when humans die out? Should we try to colonise our galaxy? Will we?
