Why does this discrepancy persist?
One important issue I do not see, is population stabilization in places where growth is unsustainable.
As a staunch, lifelong environmentalist, I am astounded to hear such advocacy attributed to my milieu: this is the first I am hearing of it.
How did you come to this belief about the climate-concern platform?
Edit: the closest sentiment I could find in the OP was this:
> Examples include withdrawing from coastlines, shutting down vulnerable industrial facilities, or giving up expectations for certain types of consumption. The third area can be called “restoration.” It involves people and communities rediscovering attitudes and approaches to life and organisation that our hydrocarbon-fuelled civilisation eroded. Examples include re-wilding landscapes, so they provide more ecological benefits and require less management, changing diets back to match the seasons, rediscovering non-electronically powered forms of play, and increased community-level productivity and support.
No one is advocating for #2 or anything like it because it's a completely incompetent and reprehensible idea.
Climate-precipitated societal collapse is surely preferable to all over a large-scale nuclear war that is suggested to have been unilaterally invoked, tantamount to murder of billions and multiple genocides. That kind of 'solution' has no place in reasonable discourse about climate change mitigation or adaptation.
> Horn mentions The Club of Rome as a big player in the global conspiracy game. They are heavy into cutting down population.
> Me too, before they breed their peasant assholes into the sea.