For the sake of the argumentobjectivity I don ' t see it wise to try to write off the what if question . I suppose my view of a cleaner world may not be that different from yours . I think more solar , wind and nuclear are all we need , along with a dramatic decrease in fossil fuel use , ideally eventually we wouldn ' t use any fossil fuel . After all , it is a finite resource , even if we do have a seemingly endless supply . I don ' t think we need to change the way we live though I do think we do havewill have a bit of a population problem , but I don ' t expect we will have to worry about that much , which leads me to believe that we don ' t view the topic all that differently , we just have slightly different interpretations on how the issue is presented . I suppose in the end I ' m just exercising a little more caution with the environment than you think necessary , so I understand your opinions on the subject . My final thought would be that an overwhelmingly large number of scientists the people that make our vaccines , ensure our health , etc . and by definition pursue truth not to say they haven ' t been wrong in the past all feel that climate change is an urgent issue facing our world today , while most of the opposition seems to come from those with money in mind . I believe it is correct that it would be wiser to act upon this and later realize action was not needed , and find ourselves less dependent on fossil fuels , than to not act on this and find much of the biodiversity threatened , or dead . Either way Thank you , kind internet stranger , for having this discussion with me . edit If you have some evidence that the action would actually have help more than hurt , then sureEvidence that taking action against climate change would help more than hurt ? If this is what you mean could you kindly link me to a couple articles with science that shows that action would hurt the environment ?