[wizofaus]

> reducing CO2 emissions is an emergency, and any other environmental considerations other than doing that is just arguing about deck chairs on the Titanic

I don't think that latter sentence follows from the first at all - it's very much a slow emergency that will play out over decades and indeed centuries, and furthermore with a global population of 8+ billion, clearly it's not feasible for all of us to drop everything just to focus on any one single environmental issue. There are inevitably going to some actions that need to be taken to ensure long term ecological health that aren't related to mitigating against climate change, but are just as important, esp. wrt release of toxins/agricultural runoff into the environment, or drawing down water tables or monitoring invasive species (a problem already, but often exacerbated by warming temperatures). Thankfully we can walk and chew gum at the same time. (FWIW I agree re the anti- nuclear stance of environment groups - and would do so regardless of the need for low-emission power: nuclear energy production generally has a much lower environmental footprint than fossil fuel generation)

[pasabagi]

It's a slow emergency in the sense that the effects will slowly increase, but it's very much a fast emergency in that the actions we take now are vastly more effective than they would be in a decade, or even a year. Because it's a self-feeding system, we will have to work much harder in the future to get the same results we could get by making reasonable mitigations today.

[wizofaus]

Sure - I don't think that changes my point though. And I have some sympathy for the argument that there may be some changes we shouldn't rush into without understanding them better (e.g. Sri Lanka's experiment with organic farming), or until we have better/cheaper technology available - what we should be doing now is a lot more research into mitigation and adaptation options.