And the reason for that is that the global society has decided that the global warming problem is sufficiently severe that current sacrifices are necessary for mitigation. Coal use is much less than it would have been without the warnings from scientists. The question is no longer whether there is a need for mitigation, but rather how much to do so.
You have no scientific basis for concluding this. Ideological perhaps, but not scientific.
I take a different approach. My definition of a climate catastrophe is a significant decline in the global living standard. I consider WWII to be a major catastrophe even though the US could reliably keep its electric lights on. I would for example consider the collapse of the world’s fisheries due to ocean acidification and warming to be a major climate catastrophe.