https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cro...-opinions/
http://www.climateactionreserve.org/reso...nge-facts/

Every catastrophe should be avoided. Is it imminent? Some might say no. But is it a real possibility by scientific consensus? Absolutely.

In the very long-term, climate changes naturally. But that usually takes thousands, if not millions of years to happen so dramatically, not a fifth of a millenia. And it is such a coincidence that in this fifth of a millenia we have been industrializing like hell, is it not?

Civilization has existed for less than 10,000 years, yet we have drastically re-shaped the Earth into something unimaginable, and we take it for granted. If making animals extinct and ruining this planet is okay in your list, lemme know. Because that is insanely cruel.

If we want nations to literally sink to their deaths (all those island nations in the Pacific and The Netherlands), yeah, sure, pollute as you wish. You're just destroying nations in the long-term, and making Earth an unlivable planet. No big deal. Destroy The Netherlands, flood New York and all those coastal cities. No problem. Killing millions by climate change is not a big deal.

Besides, even if you deny the effects of climate change, it has been proven that pollution KILLS PEOPLE. Look at China. They have poor environmental standards and use coal as a primary source of energy. How many die because of excessive pollution? Deadly smog is not good for the lungs, y'know?

Let us leave a worse world for our descendents. Because we all know money and big bucks now, plus national pride, always go over global stability later.