I don’t disagree, but two points:

1) Being a preservationist is about way more than CO2. The pesticides, chemical, microplastics, and actual pollution have a lot of negative effects. Reducing biodiversity is bad in multiple ways.

2) It’s reasonable to question the rate of change of CO2. I think it’s overblown, but I’m not totally dismissive of the idea that if we go from say 200 to 1200 in a short period of time that it could be a problem. And to the extent that it might be a problem, I think preservation is better than reducing emissions.