Honestly I always figured the global warming hysteria was mainly a cover for pushing "anti-peak oil" policies without having to admit the Emperor is naked. Cutting carbon emissions by 10%, a carbon tax in Australia, etc., doesn't strike me as really being able to put a dent in a catastrophic global warming were it actually occurring, but it does seem a reasonable approach to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the near-term.
On the other hand, maybe you're talking about other negative environmental effects that are linked to activies that cause CO2 emissions.
I think well being of people should be maximized, and in the optimal situation there shouldn't be any lifestyle changes or "austerity" measures to reduce CO2 emissions if there's no reason to reduce CO2 emissions. If they're required, then of course it's reasonable to adopt them.
Bingo. I'm not focusing so much on the carbon emissions themselves so much as the side-effects and purposes of those emissions. Removing mountaintops to get at coal and risking oily beaches and terrorist attacks to get at oil. Encouraging attitudes that careless disposability and physical inactivity are OK and normal.
> I think well being of people should be maximized The problem with maximizing people's well-being is that "well-being" has been bastardized to encompass all sorts of things that were once considered luxurious, superficial, wasteful, and pure convenience.