We can go through this point by point. But the TL-DNR is that by and large this is nonsense. However you can reduce your CO2 footprint by building a lot of safe, cost-effective nuclear power. It was always the solution. It may always be the solution.

Live car-free: The public transit infrastructure to get me places I need to go with loads of tools and supplies does not exist.
Battery electric car: In what fantasy do you think I could afford such a car? Neither the range nor charging infrastructure have been, or are being addressed. No attempt is being made to increase our generating capacity to cover the increased demands of electrified personal transportation.
One less long-haul flight per year: While flying can be a large component of an individual’s carbon footprint, most people never fly. So while dramatically reducing your air travel can dramatically reduce your contributions, flying less has limited utility for overall reductions. At the same time it sure is important not to expand air travel because if most people flew, climate change would get worse fast.
Renewable energy: You mean low-output short-lifespan wind and solar. How I wish that were a solution. But while storage is commonly cited as the main problem, in general, resource criticality is the real bugger. There are not enough mineral reserves for a single, 25-year-max, generation of wind and solar, which is therefore “non-renewable,” energy. And most of this technology, though useful in specific ways, falls one or two orders of magnitude short of replacing current generation and is unlikely to ever scale to the doubling or quadrupling of generation needed to replace fossil fuels in transportation and heating and cooling.
Public transport: I am fully on board for this. Except that we continue to not build it. You cannot use what is not there. (see Live car-free) Much of the public transit that once existed has already been dismantled to subsidize the auto industry. Niagara had comprehensive trolly/rail service in the 1950s. Toronto had more bus service in 1980 than it does now. Build it I say. Utrecht every city. Do it. But do not tell me there is anything reasonable or cost effective, as things stand, about a twice daily commute from Ajax to the Fairview Mall on transit. Such trips cost tens of dollars and sometimes take more than two hours in each direction. And that is as opposed to a cheaper 25 minute drive.
Refurbishment/renovation: This happened in the 1980’s. There are still stickers from that time on my mum’s house. The walls and attic got insulated. Tightly sealed storm windows were installed. It is done. I cannot more do it. There is also a twelve year old very expensive top-end high-efficiency furnace which is a technological piece of junk that I would replace with a simpler lower-efficiency unit in a heartbeat. There is no way that thing ever saved enough resources to justify replacing the old one, and it is coming to the end of its ridiculously short lifespan already. Replacing it when the time comes will probably double the carbon footprint of having switched to it in the first place. My other 1996 mid-efficiency furnace, which just keeps working fine. It has likely done less harm to the climate.
Vegan diet: Well you got me there. If we all only eat things that have the smallest environmental footprint then our individual environmental footprint from food would be minimized. Unfortunately no matter how you work this, the benefits are negated by runaway overpopulation. This argument always stinks of min/maxing population. It is just living in denial that half of half this population may be sustainable.
Just for reference though, I recently learned that the biomass of humans is 400 million tonnes. The biomass of all other wild mammals combined is about 20 million tonnes. That’s a twentieth of just the mass of us. Incidentally the biomass of all our mammalian livestock is 600 million tonnes. Min/maxing with dietary restrictions is not going to help with this.
Heat pump: Maybe? I don’t know. My instinct is that it is a fraught technology like my mum’s high-efficiency furnace where all the cost of manufacture, installation, maintenance and replacement negate any advantage. But I have not heard an expert wax poetic on how this would help. Perhaps that in itself is a clue.
Moreover, I recently heard someone from this industry state that for every 1kw of input to a heat pump you get 4kw out. That is amazing. They claim to have a technology four times as efficient as a perpetual motion machine.
Improved cooking equipment: Probably not what you think. I have a gas stove. It is the best stove for cooking on. On the other hand if you have carbon neutral electricity, then a gas stove has a larger carbon footprint. However over much of the world cooking is still done by burning wood or coal. Cooking has a very large carbon footprint indeed. Efforts to get (mostly women) better wood or gas stoves has been fraught and largely ineffective. Explain to me how you are going to provide electric cook tops and ovens to Africa, India and all of China.
Renewable based heating: Well that is electricity isn’t it. I know someone who thinks a distributed network where every building generates its own electricity is feasible. And that would be great. So one day I bothered to check how many full-sized solar panels it would take to equal the power of my gas furnace. Just the furnace, nothing else. That figure was over one hundred. More solar panels than would at all fit on the land available. But it is worse than that. 100+ panels assumes that they are all working at maximum efficiency and output. So noon, June 21, on a cloudless day. When I do not need the furnace. We are way out in fantasy land here.