There's a course that's been required for engineering degrees at my university for some years about sustainable development, in which they even mention collapse.
Of course almost nobody gives a fuck or even go to class.
Yes, realize it's not a great idea building a city for a million people in a desert and move everyone.
From my experience, the problem is not climate denialism anymore, at least not where I live. If you ask someone to tell you about the climate problem and its causes, most will get it right.
What they do get wrong is on who is to blame. And I'm constantly seeing the same here. They blame the rich for making the problem worse. They blame China for polluting more than its fair share. They blame the politicians for adopting inadequate measures.
But they never blame themselves. They drive a 2 metric ton car everyday, perhaps they have 3 kids, or work in finance. Or they're broke and just can't stop thinking about money all the time.
The rich are rich because we keep making them richer. China overpollutes because we overconsume. Politicians take inadequate measures because they do what the population wants to be reelected on the next term.
From my point of view, if you are emitting more than 1.2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent before 2050 (Paris agreement) and 0 tonnes after, you're the problem. If you don't have the wits or will to see through the advertising wanting you to keep overconsuming, you're the problem. If you keep blaming the others and not seeing how the problem takes its root from you, you're the problem.
The problem is at the bottom. Thus solutions will not come from the top, they will come from the bottom. Stop waiting after "those than can actually do anything". If you're not happy with the society you live in, know that you are always free to stop participating in it, and should.
When enough people do so and labor shortage becomes rampant, when the stock market collapses, when only a fraction of people participate in elections and pay their taxes, only then will things change. Society, our sick society, will have collapsed then, willingly, and something better will have taken its place.
Air conditioning inspired by Hobbits is also surprisingly effective.
Modern industrial agriculture has one outstanding advantage: productivity. Hundreds of acres of land can be cultivated with the labor of three or four persons.
Permaculture on the other hand doesn't allow for such productivity. Most people will need to grow their own food to some degree. That's actually great in the sense that food production becomes increasingly local, produced where it is consumed, in such a way that all nutrients make their way back to the soil in a cycle which has been broken by modern agriculture.
As another commenter pointed out, permaculture can seem unscientific at times. And it's perfectly fine. We all have different sites, climates, soils and experience, no size fits it all and it's often difficult in such circumstances to find the best solutions. Some will employ more unconventional ideas, as long as it works for them.
In the end, it will always make a lot more sense than planting a few hundred acres with a genetically engineering crop monoculture that can only survive with a constant supply of pesticides and fertilizer, while depleting the soil.
More reading: https://leanlogic.online/glossary/lean-food/
What about the '20s?
What? Just do both. I don't follow your logic.