An Inconvenient Truth
But why is that bad in the grander sense of Earth and nature, not just the limited concerns of the human socio-economic sphere? The whole thing is posited that since it devastates the world, its bad. But it won't eliminate life, so its only devastating in the sense of being harmful to humans and a temporary setback on some theoretical genetic progress bar people think exists. But is really just shifting nature to a different set of strange attractors for some period of time.
I don't like how misplaced concern over the devastation to nature is used as an intensifier and justification for doing something. And I definitely don't like that human problems are used to justify doing something - that's what got us into this situation in the first place. And to top it off, why do we think we can "fix" what we "broke" - there's no evidence to indicate that we have the potential to do any such thing.