What you lose is ability to detect when it is time to change the cause (because it is fixed or something else even worse comes up or unintended consequences are uncovered).

It is akin to setting a course and then closing your eyes as to avoid any distractions on the way.

Fighting climate change requires using limited resources (taxes, labor, public empathy, etc.), squandering them on useless projects (like the plastic straw ban) hurts the overall cause.

This is always true, for everything. Scientific method must be applied consistently. The instant agenda enters into the picture and dictates what truths are lies because bigger lies exist, all is lost.

if you held the opposite position in this debate, you would probably call this "whataboutism".

it's one thing to decide not to spend your mental energy on a small deceit/inaccuracy. you are actively trying to shut down the discussion.

I'm honestly kind of shocked to see someone admit that this is their intention in so few words.

It is, if your stand is from a country that destroyed its own natural forest and now demand that a country of 200million people should not use 60% of its own territory to save the world while half of its people is poor.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the contents of this article. It does not undermine the climate change (read: scientific) "agenda" in the slightest. However, considering the sheer amount of people who only read article titles and form rigid opinions nonetheless, this article's title specifically is potentially harmful.