Both sides of this thread have suggested actions, albeit competing actions. Rational discussion of competing ideas involves discussing the positives, negatives, motivating ideals, and the validity of the ideas on the table. Not discussing or raising issues evades reality and doesn't do anything to diffuse or give answer to that reality. Simply put, if we're going to do something I rather do it with eyes wide open, understanding the downsides, rather than mimic one of those "hold my beer..." memes.

And... notwithstanding the debate at hand, perhaps we shouldn't act if acting actually makes matters worse or drives bad behavior further underground. Significant thought in the climate change debate and the environmental movements is spent on thinking up all the bad things that will happen if we continue to act as an industrial society. Is your admonishment for them, or do you pick and choose who can argue as is convenient? One might say... that's my problem with the person whose proposal I was responding to... they seemed to want to pick and chose who could say what and when.