This is accurate, IMO. The rest of Jazzhead's post is more a statement of ideology, again IMO.
First - No, we cannot "reverse" or "stop" climate change in the short run (by which, sadly, I mean the next 50-100 years). We have "baked in" considerable additional warming - warming that would occur if the world went to zero fossil CO2 emissions this afternoon.
That said... How bad it eventually gets is a function of how much additional fossil CO2 we pump into the atmosphere/ocean from today forward. So the sooner we reduce or eliminate burning fossil fuels, the less the ultimate damage we will do.
What Jazzhead is NOT saying, when he discusses how the "third world" will demand economic progress and will thus demand "affordable energy" (which he implies means coal/oil, as I read his comment)... is that, as sea levels rise, and atmospheric storm energy increases, there will be fewer people in major third-world nations making those demands... hundreds of millions, if not billions, fewer people.
Now, from the selfish standpoint of a first-world person living in the United States - a person who may be concerned about his own future and that of his personal descendants - it may not matter a whole lot if agriculture in India collapses because of rising temperatures and the failure of the monsoon. It may not matter a whole lot if the Sahara expands through the Sahel and into places such as Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria. It may not matter a whole lot if Bangladesh is largely under salt water.
But it will matter - a whole lot - to the people who will die because of these changes. And to bring it home to the selfish American in my reference above, it will matter quite a bit, I suspect, when 10s of millions of climate refugees (instead of a few thousand) arrive at the Rio Grande, and attempt to cross the Mediterranean, and even go through the passes of the Himalaya toward central Asia and China, seeking places to live that are still habitable/arable.
What do you think the United States government, at the behest of all the selfish Americans who "got here first," will do, when 10s of millions of climate refugees attempt to enter? There will be too many - far too many - to arrest, try, and deport. Are we going to welcome and assimilate them? Or (more likely) are we going to start shooting them down at the border?
The sooner, and the more aggressively, we address our addiction to fossil fuels, the less of these calamities we will have to "ameliorate." But IMHO, we won't do what we need to do - and when we start "defending the homeland" by murdering millions of people, our liberal democracy (or representive republic, if you prefer that terminology) will die, and be replaced by a violent, authoritarian fascist regime that will stamp out our civil liberties and murder at will.
All the above, of course, assumes that we continue to avoid any major nuclear exchange - which is itself another all-too-likely outcome of major climate-driven cross-border conflicts
This is the future. It isn't my future, and probably not Jazzhead's future - we'll be gone. Maybe that means I shouldn't care that much... but for some reason, I do.
[Aside: I'll be gone... if things move at more-or-less the pace I expect. I have to admit that the rise of fascism in the USA - much of our population turning to a corrupt demagogue who promises the moon and then uses power to just upend our governing norms, and just abandoning what used to be our national "ideals" - has progressed rather more quickly than I would have thought possible.]
Jazzhead raises "socialism" as bogeyman in his last paragraph. I'm afraid I just have to sigh - it's tiring, and almost meaningless, except as a "scare" word, at this point. "Socialism" - as practiced in, for example, Sweden - is characterized as threatening. If you want to see where we're likely headed, don't look at Sweden - look at Erdogan's Turkey. Look at Putin's Russia. It ain't pretty - and it's not "socialism."
All in all, even as I grieve for what we're leaving for our heirs, I'm kind of glad I'm not young.