"We propose to decimate the environment to the point where human life becomes impossible."
"Well how about we meet you halfway?"
Obviously this is valid.
But what if that-which-they-are-hoping-for can be preserved, just expressed in a way other than the decimation of the world? That is, a compromise not between the arguments as they are expressed, but a compromise between the essences of arguments, in other expression?
Unless nihilism has staked its claim in our psychic bedrock, permanently, then I doubt the other half of us want decimation
for its own sake. Perhaps what they want
almost necessarily (99.99999%) leads to decimation as such, but that doesn't mean that what they want is identical to decimation as such.
There has to be a way for their ends to be met, effectively, without leading to decimation. Even if it is an asymptotically narrow window to land in. Short of that, some kind of war.
We're in a bind. Clearly. People have been sounding the alarm for decades, if not longer. Scientists even, whose voices we otherwise tend to place above all else.
I'm not arguing that we need to respect the beliefs and arguments of denialists as such, but I am arguing that we need to respect that lies at the heart of their beliefs and arguments - that around which their beliefs and arguments are erected imperfectly as scaffolding - that which has been corrupted by corporate interests who actually have almost every horse in the race
The question is not how do we force our way over theirs - that is the fallback, absolute last resort option (which we have arguably arrived at). The question is: how can the essence of that half of the argument be expressed in ways that are not empirically delusional? This would take, seemingly, someone who can appeal to the abstract roots of the conservative value system, and express those values in a more informed and cooperative manner.
Perhaps the central obstacle is how parochial many of their lives are - and yes, I am (at least provisionally) indulging in stereotyping. How can they appreciate, yet alone fight, issues that are completely invisible to them? Especially when the solution of these, to them, alleged issues
appears to come at the cost of their livelihood? This is how ugly and knotted up the situation is. The giants with enough at stake, and a tall enough platform to stand on, saw an opportunity to tilt things in their favor, and did it effectively.
So we don't, shouldn't, and frankly cannot compromise with their arguments (as
@luka and others plainly pointed out, there is little to no logical room for them to budge - they have nowhere deeper to retreat to, no land to lose).
Instead, we compromise with, and appeal to, that which lies upstream from their arguments: fear, need for security, and other perfectly valid things that, if given full reign, tend to hijack ones ability to reason.
Or, we fuel our respective engines until they collide.