If you believe climate change is going to lead to complete societal collapse, your primary policy remedies are 1) geoengineering, or 2) nuking some combination of India and China (a subset of option 1, but practical with existing tech). However, almost every global warming proponent advocates deindustrializing the west and moving production to vastly less efficient areas overseas. Why does this discrepancy persist?
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.