Anyone who tells you that climate is changing all the time, have them refer to the image below. Follow the curve.
Your graph is very misleading on several aspects. First of all, it's only since about 1960 that we've been able to accurately take atmospheric temperature readings with reliability. Prior to this, we are relying on data that doesn't show the detail available today with sophisticated instrumentation. We simply don't know about past short-term fluctuations that may have happened. So you are left with comparing past guesstimates with detailed modern information.
You will also notice, the average temperatures of today aren't much different from the averages of 5000 B.C. long before industrialization. Guess what happened without any liberal socialist anti-capitalist intervention? The temperatures magically declined! The progression of civilization didn't have to be halted, people didn't have to be guilted into complying with governmental mandates designed to redistribute wealth under the guise of "climate change". Mother Nature handled it all by herself without any help from radical environmentalists.
The next thing... Your graph, as long and storied as it is... only represents about half of a Milankovitch Cycle. We are in-between ice ages and something miraculous happens to ice whenever we're not in an ice age... it melts. Some of us think this is a good thing because it's not fun having 3-mile-thick ice sheets covering much of North America. It's makes habitation of warm blooded mammals problematic. Others of us can't wrap their small minds around the magnitude of these lengthy cycles and become alarmed at melting ice. But it's completely a natural cycle which has been happening for billions of years.
Finally, at the end of your graph are these wild speculations which have no real basis in science or reality. Various possible scenarios that can't be supported with any relevant science other than science devoted to promoting a certain narrative of which it survives from political funding to promote. The "optimistic" and "best case" scenarios are completely unachievable, unless we're all going to revert to pre-industrial civilization... we're not going to realistically do that. Nations like China are going to laugh at your silly suggestions and developing nations simply can't afford to take the measures you recommend. So you have an unfeasible solution.
In addition, I will add that the science of botany seems to completely disagree with you about our CO2 levels. According to botanical research, we know that most plant life thrives optimally at around 600 ppm CO2 levels. (We're currently at 400 ppm) Again, you seem to be at odds with Mother Nature who's plants, until recently, were actually starving for CO2, leaving large swaths of the planet unable to support plant life of any kind. Increasing the viability of plant life means increasing food supplies and feeding the hungry. So your worries about CO2 levels are also unfounded.