I am wondering if, in the face of the global warming, the long-term passive investments into ETFs are still a good idea. Right know we benefit from the growth of the economy. I assume (maybe that's wrong assumption) that in the big picture the overall growth of economy is fully dependent on the energy, i.e. whether the particular company produces products or provides services you can always show that it needs energy to grow. Global warming seems to significantly affect our energy production and the following global crisis seems to me to be very different than for instance world wars - you cannot stop it by just signing peace documents. I wonder if my reasoning is right and to be honest I hope that it's not.
Global warming doesn't impact energy production in a major way (nuclear plants getting shut down because the cooling water is too hot is a thing, but it's not a major thing). If anything we're building far more energy production (solar and wind) before we ordinarily would have to (plants reaching end of life). If energy consumption went up we would just not close a power station early....
All of the above assumes you're talking about europe/AUS/US. In other continents demand still outpaces production in many places. But that's not a global warming problem, they will happily build coal plants all day long.
Investment returns do not necessarily require economic growth. People do invest in low- to zero-growth or even declining industries, such as public utilities or tobacco, which tend to throw off high dividends. Overall, dividends (and corporate share repurchases) represent profits beyond what can be usefully invested in growth. They can still be reinvested in additional shares by individuals, and thus compound over time. In a zero-growth steady state, not everyone can reinvest their dividends, but that is fine -- some will be building their portfolios and some will be spending them down.