>we already know the problem is excessive fossil fuel consumption and resource extraction.

The fossil fuels are running out and becoming increasingly expensive to extract. Yes, burning them is bad for the environment, but there's a limit to how much we can dig up and burn.

At any rate, just because that's the cause of the problem doesn't mean the solution necessarily involves targeting that cause. We should, of course; we ought to tax air pollution and thus push incentives against more extraction and in favor of developing alternative energy sources. But as far as actually keeping the Earth cool, an easier solution might just be putting a bunch of shades in space to block sunlight, or growing reflective algae in the ocean to increase the Earth's albedo, or something like that. That doesn't even require super AI, although super AI might do those things anyway.

>Are you suggesting that AGI would coordinate human economic activity to prevent climate change in some way?

For the most part I would expect it to replace human economic activity.

>Are humans able to resist these orders if they find them to be unjust?

If the super AI decided that we couldn't, we probably couldn't. (Unless we augment ourselves to become superintelligent, which we probably will, but it's not clear how long that will take, and at any rate it boils down to the same thing.)

However, I suspect that super AI wouldn't need to use all that much direct force to influence human behavior. It could just make subtle changes throughout our economy that push us in the right direction while believing that we're still in control and patting ourselves on the back for success we didn't really earn (other than by building the super AI, which is the important part). It likely wouldn't care much about social recognition for solving the problem as long as the problem gets solved.

>this technology wouldn’t solve something like clear cutting of land for agricultural land.

We could make far more efficient use of land if we had the right infrastructure to do so. Even just transitioning from livestock to vat-grown meat (which doesn't require super AI at all, just plain old human engineering) would cut way back on our damage to wilderness areas. The damage we cause to our environment isn't purely a result of either overpopulation or bad management, but a combination of both.

>If this is solved, we may have issues with storing long term nuclear waste.

Nah. The radioactive waste storage problem isn't that hard and would become even easier with a super AI managing things. Also, fusion power creates way less hazardous radioactive waste than fission power.

>you’d have to be advocating for some sort of centrally planned AGI society.

It doesn't even need to be centrally planned, for the most part. Responsible decentralized planning would work pretty well- in many cases better. The main problem we have now isn't lack of centralization, it's lack of responsibility.