No.  Carbon based civilization is not the root cause of our environmental problems; rather it is one of the symptoms.  We over-consume everything, including the environment's ability to absorb our wastes. 

We will begin to transition to low carbon after the majority of the fossil carbon has been burned - around 2060.  It will be hard - the last great transition of equal scale was the transition between horse to car.  That caused (directly or indirectly) the First World War, the Roaring 20s, the Great Depression, and to some smaller extent, the 2nd World War.  The transition from Carbon to something else will be worse, in that almost all economies will be tied directly to carbon, and the rate of change away from carbon will be greater than what many (most?) economies can adapt to.  No one will be able to provide a hand-up for those that have fallen, because all will be teetering.

The actions we take now, even if just for the excuse of Climate Change Adaptation, will soften the blow to some extent, but have no way to prevent it.  But we also have the same problem coming from soil loss, collapse of fisheries, drinking water quality and quantity, etc.  Over-consumption has forced us to have a seriously reduced rate of consumption in the future.  We can choose now what that will look like - what we will choose to do without.  If we fail to choose, the choice will be made for us.

Climate change is real today, but its impact both short and long-term is unknown. The same could be said for the effect carbon emissions have on climate. We know it’s increasing average temperatures, but the exact cause and effect is poorly understood. Lastly, a post-carbon energy future is the ultimate goal in eventually restoring some kind of balance with the planet, but at what point can we make the switch? The answer to this question can be nebulous, black and white, but yet to be proven. The difficulty in answering this question is that energy touches almost every aspect of human civilization, so proposing any kind of dramatic shift in the way energy is produced, consumed, or priced will have profound effects on our society.  In this I completely agree with Douglas Nuttall

So,  only 1% of all energy is currently generated by renewables (solar, wind, tidal, geothermal), but energy includes transportation and heating, which renewables are not suited for. According to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuels make up around 81.6% of global energy (electricity, heating, and transportation). The main argument for not being able make the post-carbon switch is not that it would be really expensive or that it would be too disruptive to the economy, but that it just physically cannot be done. Even these countries (Germany, Denmark, and Norway)  are usually examples of industrial societies that have already made the transition to a post-carbon energy future, but the examples fall apart upon closer inspection of their ‘clean’ credentials.

So, if the paradigm is true that we can’t do away with fossil fuels yet without surrendering our material comforts, we have a dilemma: continue with our world-destroying lifestyle or reduce our standard of living to save our blue planet. Of course the choice between "destroying our planet" or "living like a caveman" is grotesquely simplistic.

And it should be noted, that a reduction is consumption does not necessarily mean a reduction in the median quality of life, or even a noticeable reduction in the quality of life of the richest.  Standard of Living must not be confused with Quality of Life.

I agree with Douglas Nutall: our dependence on carbon is not the root cause of our problems. And carbon per se is not the problem.

Our main challenges is to transition from a linear consumption pattern to a circular one. We have to learn to use our material and energy resources more efficiently. In this our dependence on fossil resources for both energy and material is a major challenge. As Douglas mentioned the economy is so dependent upon cheap fossil fuels that have replaced expensive labour, as well as other energy sources (such as biomass). This does not entail switching from a carbon based economy to something else, but switching the sources of carbon and manage the material introduced into the economy much more efficiently.

I do not understand why Tatiyana Vaikhanskaya have excluded biomass from renewables. Bioenergy is currently (~15%) and historically our main source of renewable energy. It most likely will remain so also in the future.

Some people get confused in the carbon debate thinking that biomass is not a solution since it also contains carbon. Biomass and land resources managed in a sustainable fashion are normally carbon neutral over relevant time-frames, unlike fossil carbon sources. Careful consideration of land use, crops and crop management practices may even lead to carbon negative systems, counteracting global warming.

Prices of energy resources and emissions of carbon are essential to the change towards a more sustainable society. It is inevitable that prices on energy will increase if there is to be any real change in the management of our resources. We are currently consuming energy at a rate exceeding regeneration by far.

But again, as Douglas Nutall mentioned: our quality of life need not diminish because of a move towards a more resource efficient and less fossil based society.

Peoples notion of poverty and quality of life tend to be more related to their relative wealth compared to their peers, rather than absolute wealth. That is something that most definitely needs to be taken in serious. There is a great need for working with peoples mindset in these issues. That has to start early. Preferably at kindergarden age.

The US generates 11 % of its energy by renewable.  The solar industry now employs more people than coal.Included in the 11% is biomass. Not sure why you would not include it as a source. The US is continuing adding  renewable, not by government but by private industry and large utilities companies. I'm not sure how the transition from the horse to the car was responsible for war? What the car did do was modernize warfare. The Great Depression was not directly or indirectly caused by the transition from the horse to car!

We are in the midst of a great transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy. We can improve on this by implementing energy efficiency into our building codes. We are also construction net zero building which allows us to use renewable for heat and AC. As for transportation, the electric car  is becoming more available and affordable. The idea behind this mode of transportation is to be able to change it using solar, reducing the carbon footprint. What needs to be done is to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry which will make renewable a lot more attractive and affordable. You cannot wait until most of the fossil fuels are used up to make the transition.

What we need to do is stop business as usually. One way is to switch to a circular economy, something that is being done but need to speed up. As  some societies move up the social-economic ladder we have a tendency to consume more. But with education we could improve on this. No one is saying go without but be smarter at what we have and how we use it. We must also address population growth and its effect on consumption. This is no easy topic or solution but needs to be part of the discourse.

We are experiencing the effect of short term climate change now. We have a good idea of the future if we keep going the way we're going. To say the cause and effect is not understood is miss leading...we know the cause and effect now. If you think we can't make a shift away for fossil fuel because of the profound effect is very wrong. We are using solar to reach rural area which is increasing the quality of life for some. Biofuel is also adding to the the quality of life. I do not think the paradigm is true its what you perceive it to be. 

Mark; I talk about Peak Horse a little on my blog at http://sustainabilityengineering.net/peak-horse/.  This is a short history lesson.

Essentially, in around 1900, all big cities had a looming environmental crisis because trains hauled feed to the horses, but no-one hauled manure away.  By switching to car, they dramatically reduced the labour requirements, food requirements, and caused the waste products to blow away in the wind.  A Pancea for all that ailed them.  But all that reduction in labour requirements took 2 generations to fully absorb - we didn't need so many farriers, or vets, or harness makers, or grooms, or...  

England decided in 1900 that it would create no more mounted military units, and phase out the older ones (because they couldn't feed both the people and the horses).  The mechanization throughout all of Europe that was occurring was alarming many countries, because their enemies were developing weapons they couldn't fight (so, they in turn developed other new technologies).  WWI was, in a way, an effort to provide a pre-emptive strike before the enemy would be unstoppable.  Didn't work well for anyone.  21.5 million horses were shipped from North America throughout WWI, and at the end of the war, none were shipped back (most were eaten, in the end).  They weren't needed anymore.

Industries that could take comparative advantage of the lower labour needs of the internal combustion engine vastly improved their bottom line, but the unemployed people couldn't be retrained as fast as they were appearing.  Some companies were able to completely outstrip their competition, and were able to surge ahead, producing fantastic improvements in efficiency.  Thus the Roaring 20s.

Remember that in the 30s, the EROI on oil was in the order of 100:1 (note it is now slightly less than 17:1, and continuing to decline; the Roman Empire collapsed with an EROI of about 9:1;  nuclear energy is between 5 and 10, and tarsands is 6).  Dumb labour could be replaced by a machine pretty simply.  The guy sweeping the stables couldn't find unskilled work anymore.   And yet the total GNP of affected countries stayed effectively constant for a decade.

In WWII, there were targets that Germany attacked specifically for capturing the horses there.  They still had mounted units, and it meant that they constantly had to figure out how to feed them.  Horses have a much higher ecological footprint than the machines that replace them.

As for the rest:

It's not that we can't transition because it is hard.  Its that we will transition, regardless of our expectation, and it will be very hard.  All efforts to put off making the wise choice will only accelerate having no choice at all.  The hopeful part of it is that for every door that closes, another one opens - we just can't tell what it will look like yet.