> The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they were making a moral case about not being obligated to avert warming at all I re-

> The linked article I was rebutting wasn't making that utilitarian case, they were making a moral case about not being obligated to avert warming at all I re-read the article and I don't understand how you arrive at this interpretation. This appears to be something you're assuming. The article is precisely about the utilitarian argument: the trade-off between the expected effectiveness of energy policies and their cost.