Yes this sounds great but the issue is about how longtermists revel in the opportunity to sacrifice near term goals for long term ones, in an almost pathologica

Yes this sounds great but the issue is about how longtermists revel in the opportunity to sacrifice near term goals for long term ones, in an almost pathological way. I still don't understand why there should be any conflict between aggressive environmentalism and longtermism, but it keeps coming up over and over again. All I can think of is that longtermists want to demonstrate how truly long-term they are and therefore act like one of the most pressing current issues is secondary to a bunch of other stuff. In general and in the absence of more info I think it's safe to go for the proximal goal of stabilizing the world's ecosystems, even though it _could_ in theory be a non-existential risk. All of that said, the conflict between longtermism and environmentalism might mostly be manufactured by the critics of longtermism, like the author of this article.