Respectfully, that isn't true.
It's probably because of the advertisement/meme generations being fed half truths or outright lies for 4 generations.
"EARTH ENDING", "Save The Planet", etc for example...
The plant will still be here. It's a ball of metal with a rocky crust, pretty hard to destroy that, or 'End' it/remove it from existence.
The "Planet Earth" has never known there is life here and never will. It's human ego that *Thinks* it's anything special, collective or individual.
Take you ego out of it, engage the rest of your brain, and it becomes clear rather quickly...
As actual experts have educated me, it's the biosphere, where life exists, is the fragile part since it requires a fairly delicate balance to sustain/maintain conditions life as we know it.
Actual, educated scientists call it "Life Cycle" for a reason, things in the cycle have to stay in balance for the CYCLE to continue to support any given type of life.
"Biosphere Ending" and "Save The Biosphere" just don't have the same bumper sticker/meme ring... But WAY more accurate... but then again I've never been much into bumper stickers, slogans, and/or memes.
Now, if you want the earth to have an atmosphere more like Venus or Mars, our closest planetary neighbors, then by all means keep screwing with the biosphere.
*CAN* humans survive in a thin, CO2 based atmosphere? Maybe short term, there is no long term data of any kind since it's pointless to do research on anything but short term stays on Mars.
Again, the question would be,
"Do you want to try on a planetary scale?"
Sounds like way more work than I want to do...
Some guys would like the idea of closed environments, breathing everyone else's burps, facts, BO... drinking filtered urine (not recycled/evaporation distilled), etc.
Not my idea of a good time.
NOT being one of the ultra rich that can afford it, or the uber educated that can design & build such habitats, I'm screwed anyway.
Everyone but the 1% in either category has a shot, the other 99% are on their own, like usual...
Now, while a bunch (majority) ignore the issue, some turn it into political or conspiracy theory fuel, which does nothing, i choose to listen to the educated professionals as far as I can understand the product of their study...
DOE (Department Of Energy), DOD (Department Of Defense) and several others have been recommending since the 90s we go as sustainable/renewable as possible with current technology.
Examples are the push to have the military with a no fail mission, to go locally produced, sustainable energy. No big, aging power grid susceptible to failure and/or attack.
Example, in Delaware there isn't any local fossil fuel resources, every bit of power is imported.
They raise a LOT of poultry, chickens in particular. Chicken waste was a big problem, e-coli, salmonella, etc when used directly, lots of methane...
They built bio-reactors that extract methane for energy, cooked the waste so it was safe for fertilizer, and power big chunks of rural Delaware with it. It's naturally occurring methane, so it's in the carbon cycle, and not fossil fuel.
The military went locally produced wind, solar, and now receives locally produced power from chicken crap.
Example: Boston has an aging sewage system, much of which Ben Franklin paid to have built. It wasn't handling the population density.
One solution was bio reactors, methane/energy from crap. It's wildly efficient & effective with the added benifit of killing pathogens in that human waste.
Side businessness are building bricks (bio-bricks), fertilizer, and recovered heavy metals.
I would prefer to build facilities like these rather than closed habitats for the ultra rich and their servants...