half of the people don't believe it's an existential that needs addressed and most of the other half are either morally opposed to such political action or feel like it can be managed without resorting to it just yet.

Yeah, pretty much my point. Hardly an 'existential crisis'. Screaming about the end of civilisation and then starting a leafleting campaign to prevent it is pretty much textbook virtue signalling - the 'signal' is out of proportion to the act.

burning those companies to the ground doesn't do anything to the demand for their product

I can guarantee it would cause more discussion in the (ashes of the) boardroom than a strongly worded letter to The Times. And we don't have to worry about demand. Just refuse to pay them for it until they provide a better alternative.

Monetarily incentivizing their creation is our primary need

Why 'monetary'?. Why not violence? Civil disobedience? Strike action? Rude gestures? Not inviting them to your dinner party?

Why does the incentive have to be money? Isn't that pretty much what got us into this mess?