And who is to say science will not advance again and prove us fools?
I'm all for 'saving the planet'. It is just hard to take it serious when you have leaders of the movement buying 10,000 sq ft homes and jet-setting around the world. Yet we should all sacrifice.
Although doubtful, that may turn out to be the case. But what's the downside of trying to reduce or mitigate our impact on the world? In the last hundred years we've really cranked our impact up to 11, and that sort of thing just can't continue exponentially without serious consequences.
I like to use the leaded gasoline as an example. Something we thought was just fine for a long time, which was then discovered to have some serious impacts to the environment and humans that are still being dealt with today. There was a major fight against those finding by those who profited on things staying the same.
I absolutely agree with your second statement. It's incredibly hypocritical to live in such opulence and reprimand the rest of us for using a fucking straw.
The vast majority of serious pollution comes from industrial and transportation.
Oil-based paint with lead to make it go on nice and even. Then in the late 70s someone noticed that every painter over 40 had brain damage from the lead and the fumes. So now it's all latex, except for some specialty applications, and the can is covered with warnings otherwise.
And there has been absolutely no advancement in science and our understanding of climate since the 1970's. The goal of science is further understand and explain reality. So with new technology and better data collection, the sum of knowledge becomes more intricate and complete.
For example, In the 70's the thought of a human retrovirus was considered an absurdity, about a decade later we had a more complete picture and understanding of HIV.