Yes. Morgan's faction (all the factions really) were not meant to be healthy desirable models of future civilization.

Americans who decry environmentalism and the EPA don't seem to be clamoring to say "there's nothing wrong with Beijing's air"

I've seen one or two saying that when the topic is brought up. None who have actually been to Beijing, I think.

Stabilize carbon, ocean temperatures and acidity levels, forest depletion, and species collapse -- within our current generation, please.

Then you can chide people for being overly moralistic.

Being of the opinion that climate change has the potential to become an existential threat to humanity in spite of the fact that we are still debating whether or not it exists, I feel that it's appropriate to raise the issue in most conversations about fossil fuels.

> "Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future."

Researchers at University College London published a study in Nature[0] which determined that a significant portion of the remaining fossil fuel resources must _not_ be used if we are to avoid crossing one of the major thresholds of climate change. This isn't about morality, it's about the survival and prosperity of future generations.

[0]: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worl...

Unfortunately the full article is behind a paywall, but I wonder how many assumptions the authors must have made to specify not only the amount of carbon that can be released, not only the balance of coal, oil, and gas that can be consumed, but the regional distribution of that consumption.

Sounds more like politics than science, and neither the Guardian article nor the abstract explain the reasoning why some carbon is ok and other carbon must be kept below ground. Are we meant to merely accept it on authority?

And why 2C? A number that round almost certainly has no scientific significance, and was probably chosen for psychological and political reasons. It's a completely arbitrary target, but we are meant to feel fear that we won't meet it.

Articles like this give people who aren't inclined to believe in climate change more reason to suspect it's a scam (something I've often heard them claim).