You're right, banks cannot stop people from spending money on cars & driving. They can, however provide incentives with lower APR's to consumers who purchase a vehicle that is a hybrid or all electric, or other green sources of fuel.
I don't think replacing all the cars currently in use with electric vehicles is sufficient. Pavement, sprawl, and development are the big problem because the land that once absorbed carbon as trees and other biomass gets cleared and paved-over.
Public transit reduces the number of vehicles per person, which means you can narrow roads and/or reforest them by planting trees in unused lanes. Parking lots are also a problem, though many have trees growing in them.
Retail shopping centers and offices are also designed wrong for the most part. Some college campuses design their buildings to incorporate trees and greenspace in courtyards, etc. between narrower-footprint buildings, but most commercial developments are the farthest thing you can imagine from being forested. Banks finance such developments because people go spend money and work there.
Unless ALL banks stop funding unsustainable developments, transportation, infrastructure, etc. those that do restrict themselves to funding green/sustainable projects will just fund economic growth that will lead to other banks financing unsustainability. E.g. you can pay people to create transit and green developments, but unless you stop other people from selling them cars, houses in the suburbs, and retail/office spaces to shop and work by driving, the status quo is just going to continue while a certain subset of people develop small islands of sustainability within the larger sea of unsustainability.
Banks don't necessarily fund construction/building projects, municipalities tend to issue bonds for capital. Some of those municipal improvements are for mass transit and also for upkeep on existing road surfaces.
Same difference. It's all finance.
People tend to live in a space that includes a roof, sides, an entry way, living space, a place to eat, sleep, take a shower and to entertain friends and family. For you to insinuate that humans do not have a right to purchase some sort of shelter is pure ridiculousness. However, those abodes can be made from/with sustainable materials and using renewable resources to heat/cool their home.
Not at all. Residential housing should just be built in a way that fits between full-canopied trees; as should other types of buildings and pavements. Reforestation can occur everywhere if everything humans build is carefully designed to allow trees/forest to flourish as part of human geography.
Most people don't grasp what it means to fully restore natural climate yet.
Now, if you'd like to do your part in a greener existence, you personally could stop purchasing your electric to fuel your internet capability and go off grid. Your choice to help the economy by using electric means to feed your bandwidth could be altered to a minuscule level. You first.
Computers and flatscreens use very little electricity. I could go off grid with just a few solar panels because I know how to conserve energy. Heating and cooling are the most power-hungry appliances, followed by clothes dryers, and water heaters. You can run your computer w/ flatscreen monitor and energy-efficient lighting quite a lot before you waste the gains you can make by line drying laundry, switching off your water heater until you're ready to shower, washing clothes in cold water, using fans instead of A/C, and wearing warm clothes indoors in the winter, while only heating certain well-insulated rooms instead of the entire house.