> “ that nitpicking is actually a critically important signal telling us that the framework with which we’re approaching these problems is faulty. First, our ef

> “ that nitpicking is actually a critically important signal telling us that the framework with which we’re approaching these problems is faulty. First, our efforts at mitigation are rooted in the idea of harm reduction: how can we keep doing what we’re doing, but less bad?” Unfortunately if you take this attitude you won’t get anywhere, certainly not to a world with less climate destruction. You have two options (a) we keep doing what we’re doing, just as bad or worse (b) we keep doing what we’re doing, but less bad That’s it. There is no third option where we don’t keep doing what we’re doing. The overwhelming preference of the humans on earth is to destroy the planet and retreat into biodome bunkers if we have to, but absolutely no option permits reducing consumption or material innovation. Extinction, wasteland, whatever, nobody cares. You’ve got to deal with that inarguable fact. If you can show them a way to keep their comforts but less bad, even if they must pay more, then you might be able to solve problems. But you have to take it as a constraint that people must keep doing what they are doing, come what may. That part’s not changing.