An intelligent friend found this argument about the climate crisis plausible [View all]

[JudyM]

Wondering what environmental/climate science folks here think about it, especially the ecosystem/biodiversity parts.

There is No Climate Emergency
Climate change is an optimization problem that must be solved calmly and rationally. Alarmism is the wrong response.
…
It’s worth reiterating that, if we can keep ourselves to the SSP2–4.5 emissions trajectory (or even slightly below), we are currently navigating the most challenging decades due to the rapid rate of change. After 2050, the rate of temperature rise will slow down and approach stagnation by 2100. At that point, ecosystem pressures will be considerably lower than they are today because climate zones will no longer be shifting, allowing nature to catch up and settle down into a new equilibrium.

The rate of global temperature rise in realistic emission trajectories (SSP2–4.5 or below) slows considerably after mid-century | IPCC
Our job is to limit the rate of change and manage the transition period as best we can. If we do this reasonably well, nature will thrive in the 22nd century and beyond.
…
It’s time to take a collective deep breath and approach the climate optimization problem with a new sense of pragmatic calm. Denial is dangerous, alarmism is even more dangerous, and the gross inefficiency caused by these extreme groups screaming at each other only makes things worse. Instead, we should consciously target the wide and achievable optimal zone in the middle, probably between two and three degrees.

If we manage to stabilize the global climate in that optimal zone this century without hurting economic upliftment through climate panic, our 22nd-century descendants can have no complaints. In fact, they may even thank us for leaving them a moderately warmer planet with a more active carbon cycle and an economy granting high climate resilience to all.

https://medium.com/a-balanced-transition/there-is-no-climate-emergency-2375e90cbb23