You missed the economic considerations.
On the contrary, I've said it several times already, but you seem to not grasp it. It's more costly to not act sensibly.
Adding people to make the same amount of energy is less productive, not more.
Tell that to the coalminers.
More people raise the costs of any product. Coal is very efficient as it's a mature industry that doesn;t need new people.
You're kidding/trolling, aren't you?
Coal is not efficient when the true cost is incorporated. How much is (human) life worth to you?
Creating alternative energy products that require more people means higher costs as what's happened in Germany where they're playing 2 1/2 times for electricity as Americans do.
No, we do not require more people for that. We require more energy as world population grows and we replace many processes with electric ones (not too many steam engines available anymore, are there?).
If we got rid of tractors, a farm would need lots of more people to sow and reap. More jobs. But the cost of food would skyrocket due to increasing costs of labor to farm the same amount of produce.
We are not replacing tractors with people, your example is ludicrous.
The argument renewables create more jobs is a reason NOT to use them.
More skilled labor is needed not for its own sake, but to replace inefficient technology with higher quality jobs. More and better education is needed because jobs need that. There are fewer people entering the labor market, so they need to be better equipped for the tasks at hand. Export markets are expanding, so you should invest in people/skills and technology you can export and monetize (instead of importing/consuming more that you earn, which requires printing money and burdening future generations). One could go on, but I won't waste more words on it. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".
If only people would open their eyes... Not to stare at their bellybutton, but to look forward to the (no too distant) future.