I agree with the thrust of your article, but the conclusion seems incorrect to me, you reject your use of e-bike and solar panels for reasons which I believe are incorrect; solar panels can be made from all kinds of materials, other than only with rare elements, there is an awful lot of misinformation about that, generated by rival energy, even wind turbine companies, who all want to smear solar, even though it is the one consistently winning in markets.
Also, the battery in your e-bike, and in many other things, will be replaceable in the near future with reversible hydrogen fuel cells, which are far more environmentally friendly than toxic batteries. This hasn't happened yet, because too much money is being made on batteries, of course the industries gaining there want to milk that for as long as possible.
You don't mention the size of your solar array, I am guessing it can't be much (not much is needed to charge an e-bike). But if you have the funds, and the land to expand that capacity, and back it up with hydrogen generation and reversible fuel cells, then you would be in the enviable position of being able to produce more hydrogen than you need, so woud have some spare to give or sell to others. In other words, your solar capacity would be making money for you, without need of connecting to grid.
On CO2, the reason it is a problem is the Greenhouse effect, which increases with more CO2, this was proven by experiments in smaller closed environments, as far back as mid 1800s. It is backed now with an awful lot of experiments and measurements on Earth.
On what needs to be transformed, I don't see it as much to be individuals, although we can make a difference (Living in town, I got rid of my car and ride an e-bike now too), it is industry and big business that really needs to change.
I think this will happen more or less automatically, when we truly switch from extracted energy, to donated energy, we are already at around 10% switched, and the effect can already be seen on money, it is devaluing, because it is not being issued to reflect donated energy, only extracted energy, since money is only issued on promises to pay, which are promises to extract, not energy donated. To represent energy donated, it has to be given out for free. I call this "Kardshev Money". With that free money, knowing where it came from, of course we would spend as much of it as we can on expanding our solar capacities, to further maximise our financial stipends, with a clear conscience knowing also that ultimately there is no harm in that business to Earth, only good.
Until that is done, we will continue to not truly value solar, whilst it necessarily scales up nonetheless, and we will continue to see inflation spiralling out of control.
After we go completely solar powered, and money has been adapted to work with it, by assigning an energy standard to money, and issuing it for free representing the energy received and put to use, then we might realise that humanity has simply done what the shoot of a tree does, when it first sprouts leaves, it switches from the energy it extracted from Earth to grow to that stage, and it begins to use the energy of the sun for its own growth, collecting not only enough to do that, but enough also enough to pass onto all other things on Earth, generating no pollution.
In that state, we will no longer be a burden to our Mother Earth, but something positively adding value, the same way as trees do, the more of us the merrier, to do that good work, it seems to me.
Using the sun to power everything we do fixes everything automatically, I believe.
