> until we’ve averted the upcoming climate disaster

Realistically, not going to happen. We might be able to mitigate it, but not avert it. The best strategy is to plan it live with it rather than trying to avert it.

The best strategy is to stop CO2 emissions as fast as possible. We already did enough damage that we'll need mitigation strategies in the future, every ton of CO2 we add to the atmosphere makes mitigation more expensive. Climate change is not some binary thing which you either prevent completely or don't. It just gets worse and worse proportional to how long we keep burning fossil fuels.

If it only went proportional... The results are closer to logistic with some stability islands, exceeding certain thresholds causes runaway changes moving the equilibrium up. And there are some terrible end game scenarios we do not want to ever reach, such as exceeding wet bulb temperature in most living and farming places - cooling requires huge amounts of energy in scale. Exceeding that would make many places unlivable without technological support.

Then there's the ultimate point where hydrological cycle stops, causing runaway drying.

I think that depends on what you count as “disaster”. Some stuff is certainly baked in, but we might yet be able to stop short of what I think of as a disaster.

I’m not certain we will — problem and solution are both exponential — but I certainly think it’s plausible.

Replacing coal with these and nukes while renewables are still being built (at greater speed than ever) is still an improvement.

Putting a coat of paint on the house the week before it has to be demolished is technically an improvement as well.