It is, but it's worth making the trade-off explicit. In a day and age where 1/3 of the world population drinks water polluted with lead, and a recent study was

It is, but it's worth making the trade-off explicit. In a day and age where 1/3 of the world population drinks water polluted with lead, and a recent study was published this week on HN claiming out of over 1000 water streams studied only 2 were unpolluted by medicine, the chemical treatments and quantity of water required for some production are key metrics to consider. I mean it's not that i'm not worried about CO2 emissions. But tackling this problem is super easy and it's just no politician/businessman is interested in the answer (degrowth and low-tech). Forever-chemicals and polluted water sources on the other hand is a much harder and yet mostly-undiscussed problem beyond collapsologist circles. +2°C is worrisome and will have significant damage on many species. Polluted water sources challenges the very idea of humanoid life in much of the world. It's interesting to note that both problems have the very same origin (industrial capitalism) and the same solution: don't produce shit we don't need, don't produce un-durable stuff, don't produce stuff from cheapest imported/synthetic materials.