Interesting story!
My first thought on it is to wonder how long it took you to write.
Then I'd maybe try convert that to energy, how much energy it took for you to write the story in kWhrs.
I guess maybe an hour, using a computer consuming maybe 150 Watts, which is about the same as what you metabolise, another 150 Watts. I'd guess you live in the US, where doomerism seems most prevalent, and it's winter there, so you probably have at least a KW of heating power going on, to keep you nice and toasty whilst you wrote the story.
So the energy cost of the story so far,, to the planet (Assuming you are not yet solar powered, otherwise why would you doom?), is about maybe 1.3KWhrs.
Then I am inclined to wonder how many might read the story, maybe even applaud it. This part is difficult, the platform algos are not very honest, they might promote your story or not, and they might honestly tell you or I how many read it or not, they are not obliged to do so, they'll just do whatever maximises the profit to the platform.
So it's a wild guess; let's say 0.01 percent of maybe 30 million folk read your story. I admit I skim read it but the average reader in the doomer cult might savour every word, follow every link, could be a good ten to twenty minutes spent there, maybe even a half hour in some cases. Let's say 15 minutes on average, and they all in the US, and they all using PCs and heating just like you might be, and none of them are solar powered either. So each of their energy costs to the planet by reading your story was a quarter of what yours was producing it. But there are 3000 of them, if my estimation is even remotely close, so their total energy cost by reading your story has to be about 750 times your 1.3KWhrs, so maybe 975 kWhrs.
I'd be inclined to round that up a little to 1MWhr to keep things simple whilst going towards whatever energy any algos or humans might have consumed processing your story, and broadcasting it the the world.
Now I am wondering what the temperature cost of that 1MWhr might be to the planet.
There has to be a temperature cost, because every Joule of every MWhr extracted from the planet, liberated to heat, has to have a temperature cost, this is physics, we can't get around it.
And yet, there is no proof that there are too many people on the planet.
Trying to prove it, when we haven't even been born as a species from dependence on the energy of the planet yet, is like trying to prove a plant that has not yet become photosynthetic, has too much substance, just when it started to form leaves.
If you do manage to succeed in convincing folk this is true, it has to result in atrocity, losing at least part of the baby, which could indeed jeapardise chances of the baby being successfully born, at least into any state where it might be capable of paying back it's energy debt to its mother, like every plant does, thousands of times over, contributing much more to temperature drop than temperature rise, by putting more of the energy of the sun to use as creation, rather than the net destruction we've done to date, whilst allowing yet more of the energy of the sun just go to the heat it would become if neither we nor nature used it.
I think there is much more wisdom in the old saying, "Get busy livin' or get busy dyin', than is obvious.
There isn't really any halfway house, no net zero, we will be busy doing either one or the other.
For now it looks pretty clear which one you choose, whether you are aware of it or not.