> My overall point ... is that we're much better off focusing on concrete ecological issues that can be solved today (not draining aquifers, better agriculture

> My overall point ... is that we're much better off focusing on concrete ecological issues that can be solved today (not draining aquifers, better agriculture practices, elimination of weird farm bill subsidies to harmful crops, etc...). Thank you for giving some concrete examples of what you mean. However, I'm still not convinced by the "that can be solved today" criteria. One key problem with such criteria is that someone can say "that can't be solved today" in order to avoid taking action. What is your response? In my other comment, I offered a very high level summary of how science, technology, governance, economics, and finance relate w.r.t. climate change. I was hoping to see your response. Your response these very much connects to the "that can be solved today" criteria. Sustained investment in research and development is important because science and technology can expand the solution space. In parallel, more public awareness can increase the political will for increasing the budget for action. (Of course, there are many other components necessary for humanity to address the situation.)