My interpretation of this is that Carlin is using only in a literal sense, and using bicycle paths as an example. There are many people that think climate change can be solved if only all cars were electric, if only we stopped eating meat, if only we turned off the lights when we left the room.

I wish I was joking when I write this, but the general populace is vastly underinformed about climate change. They are usually wealthy enough to live in areas where there haven't been inconveniences due to climate change, outside of a few more hot summer days or rainy nights.

Carlin's critique is on (at least) two levels.

First, the climate change crowd is hypocritical, in that it markets itself as altruistic, when in reality they're just trying to save our collective asses. It's a boatload of BS to "save the planet". It should be altered to "save the planet...for us". Their intentions may be laudable, but their marketing is fake.

Second, our brutal, war-like nature means that anything remotely resembling the worldwide response that is necessary to address climate change is laughable at best. Outside of wars, which we love, the world just tells everyone to go screw themselves. If we can't take care of each other, real human beings in pain directly in front of our eyes, how to hell are we supposed to work towards some esotheric, undefined goal like "saving the planet"?