I think cutting global warming emissions by more than 50% is better than doing nothing.
I can halve the emissions from my car by driving it half as much. No need to buy a Tesla to do so.
Finding work closer to home, or moving your home closer to work, can help in this, if you live in some area with shitty public transport, and/or if cycling is impractical because of distance or road conditions. Whatever the financial and environmental cost of cars, I don't know many people who say they enjoy their driving commutes. The average car owner in a big Australian city spends about an hour altogether going from home to work and back again. There's usually another half-hour of driving to other places like shops and schools and hobbies. What fraction of that 90 minutes a day is enjoyable, and what fraction annoying, boring and frustrating?
From here, we see that about 20% of people commute 5km or less, which can be walked. More than 40% do 5-20km, which can be cycled given the right local infrastructure - I wouldn't expect people to cycle along main roads with trucks, but suburban streets are generally fine. The rest are 20km or more, and they need either access to public transport, or to arrange their lives so that their workplace and homes are closer.
In my case, I spent 4 years working at a globogym, and unfortunately I had to drive. I had to be there at 0530. For the first year I got up at 0400 and cycled 24km. I spent this time applying for jobs closer by and didn't get them. Then that place closed and I got a job at another 3km up the road. It wasn't safe to cycle up this way because of the large vehicle traffic. Public transport would have involved a train 24km into the city, taking another train out 5km, then a tram the 3km up the road - but the earliest I could arrive after this 75 minutes of travel was 0645. So I drove. In this time I continued applying for jobs closer to home with no luck - there are few jobs in my sector, mostly it's rental and commission-based, and with a small child I needed something more secure.
I did that for 4 years and by then had built up my skills and reputation so that I could start my own business out of my garage. Now I fill my car 4 times a year. Obviously in that time we've done other things to reduce our impact, too.
Changing your lifestyle may take time and deliberate effort, but it can be done. This applies whatever your planned change, whether increasing your income, paying off a debt or saving money, changing careers, establishing a marriage and family, buying a yacht or reducing your environmental impact.
Yes, changing jobs may cost you money. Moving house will cost you money. But a Tesla costs money, too. Rather than $50k on a Tesla to halve my transport emissions while still driving 90 minutes a day and hating every minute of it, it may be worth paying that $50k extra for the home closer to work, or taking a pay cut for a workplace closer to home - and being able to drive 45 minutes a day, instead. This allows you an extra 45 minutes a day to earn more money, or spend time with your family, or watch Netflix or whatever you like to do - it's got to be more fun than sitting in traffic.
But you have to not be a complainypants, but decide to do it, and make plans to do it, learning from others who've done it.
Because of the religion of
Science! in the West, we often look for a complicated expensive solution when a simple cheap one would do. You could buy a Tesla, or you could drive less. Which would better improve your quality of life?
Kyle's suggestion that everyone simply consume less simply isn't going to happen.
Because of cognitive dissonance, we forget how much we ourselves change. In 2003 over 70% of Democrat supporters in the US thought Iraq had WMD, by 2006 when they were asked if they'd ever believed Iraq had WMD, only 20% admitted it. "I always knew Dubya was lying." This is why it's so hard to find anyone whose parents or grandparents marched against desegregation. Change seems impossible, but happens bit by bit, and then suddenly all at once. There have been many changes in Western society in the last century or two which people at the time thought were impossible and would never happen, but which on our looking back we now see as inevitable.Fossil fuels are going to run short. The peak of conventional oil in 2005 helped precipitate the GFC a couple of years later; recession reduced demand, and allowed time for more marginal production to come online, though at the cost of more debts which can never be repaid (look into the economics of shale oil some time). So they'll run short and at some point we will have to use less. It's prudent to practice using less now so it's not so much of a shock later on. Collapse now and avoid the rush. 
