Rogue 9 pretty much covers half of what I was going to say. But here is the rest.
That being the case I propose this thought experiment: Imagine that Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is conclusively proved
It already is. The fact that idiots like you are idiots does nothing to change the weight of evidence in this respect.
and accepted and, starting in 2016-2020 the newly inaugurated US president Bernie Sanders will begin a crash program to eliminate the use of non-green sources of electricity which WILL over the course of his presidency reduce the use of electiricy in the US by at least 90%. fisrt imagine how this will affect your family.
Really? This is the best you can do? There are sources of electricity other than fossil fuels. But OK. Lets continue with your ridiculously contrived scenario.
Will you object or go along with the program? If drafted will you fight against the opposition and burn down thier homes?
Yes, and no. I am (mostly) a utilitarian. There are better options for dealing with climate change than reducing humanity to the late victorian period in terms of energy use. Ramping up nuclear power through massive state capital investment, for example. Impoverishing millions is the work of a madman.
Remember, electricity usage coming from non-green sources is now a moral evil on the level of slavery
A proclamation by the state does not a moral evil make. Slavery is objectively wrong, made even more wrong by the brutal conditions practiced in the american south.
Now, on to the point I think you were, in your special and incoherent way, trying to make.
What a state is obliged to do in the face of an insurrection and the circumstances that cause an insurrection are two different things. The state has two options when faced with an insurrection. It can acquiesce and either cease to meaningfully exist or change to accommodate the demands of the insurrectionists if practicable (it rarely is), or can crush the insurrection. Those are its options. There is no moral dimension to this. It simply is. No state can survive if it permits insurrection to go un-crushed, so they do not do so. They might fail at the crushing and the government may fall or its borders may be redrawn, but it cannot simply permit armed insurrection for every grievance.
Then there are the complaints that cause insurrection in the first place. These may be justified, or unjustified. This can be on the basis of facts (say, an insurrection caused because the population believes something that is not true as a matter of fact, which would render the insurrection unjustified. An example would be if Bavarians believed that their children were being kidnapped and eaten by members of the Bundestag), or ethics (had the Armenians during WWI rebelled against the genocide being perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire, it would have been justified).
The Slave States were wrong in both. They feared (incorrectly) that Lincoln wanted to take their slaves, and their desire to preserve the institution of chattel slavery was itself monstrous.
Unless of course you want to make an argument regarding the morality of enslaving your fellow human beings.