Social framing with a handy adverbial injunction "should be" is political; if not a purely religious morality if unsupported.
No! A full quadrant risk analysis shows that 1:16 outcome in anything but where a global warming leading to a catastrophe can be averted AND is averted that the various sub-optimum economic outcomes achieved in geo-morphing the planet would outweigh the costs.
So there is simply no first order logical necessity to a win/win outcome. That is a ribbish. Nothing more that the conditioning of popular social framing.
Even more critical the asymmetry assumed in the global warming assumptions are flawed. There is no necessity to the understanding that a warmer climate is a lessor environment for humanity or the biological planet, whereas there is equally every reason to show that a warmed climate will resolve pressing issues confronting the planet.
