It can, but there’s a point of diminishing returns. There’s little point in protecting an ecosystem if it isn’t going to exist in a decade or two anyway. A big

It can, but there’s a point of diminishing returns. There’s little point in protecting an ecosystem if it isn’t going to exist in a decade or two anyway. A big construction project might have a more tangible short-term impact, but if that excuse is used in every project that’s likely to have a strong positive impact on climate change, we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Of course, nothing is every black-and-white; destroying countless local ecosystems is a high cost, and it’s difficult to measure whether it’s worth that cost. How many ecosystems will be saved as a result? From any single project, probably none. From all the projects combined, maybe a lot. It’s along the lines of, “nobody else is trying to prevent calamity X, so calamity X is inevitable, and I shouldn’t try to stop it if the cost is calamity Y, where calamity Y is a more localized version of calamity X.” Well, calamity X is going to bring about calamity Y anyway if everyone has that mindset. It reminds me of the Trolley Problem [1], except the “do nothing” outcome is a long way off, and the “do something” outcome happens immediately, thereby skewing the choices. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem