Everything else -- our sustainable agriculture, steady-state economics, social justice, health and educational priorities all depend upon climatic stability.
The 2C warming 'safety rail' proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would itself amount to a considerable change in our pre-industrial and 19th-20th century climatic conditions and would require expensive and risky remediation from wealthy and poor nations alike. We would still lose many low-lying areas of the world, including Pacific Islands, to ocean encroachment and disastrously energetic storm events.
The so-called 'safety-rail' is a misnomer: it is merely a threshold beyond which we run greater risks of runaway and permanent climatic upheaval. Hardly a satisfactory outcome. We can do better and we must do better if we are serious about protecting our civilisation and preserving the ecosystem for the generations to come.
There is another reason why I prefer to discuss climate stability rather than climate change, and I'll explain below the 'Read More' fold:
By referring to climate stability, we also reach out to more conservative-leaning voters for whom the term 'change' evokes an atavistic response of resistance, but who are quite attracted to notions of stability and continuity. Without climate stability, conservative-leaning voters face a future of uncertain risks, shocks and upheaval. I believe we can be much more effective in engaging such voters through the term 'climate stability' than 'climate change'. We've proven that Greens can win seats of Labor and the Nationals -- I want to start winning seats from LIberals too!