On the previous thread, Richard Betts argued that nobody was arguing for shifting resources from dealing with the problems of the present and towards the (hypothetical) problems of the distant future.
As evidence to the contrary, I give you firstly the reaction to Bjorn Lomborg's arguments - namely that we should focus on problems like clean water, malaria and access to energy in the developing world today. For this he has been subject to what can reasonably be characterised as a hate campaign by environmentalists.
Secondly I give you Bob Ward, who described a Matt Ridley article calling for a focus on energy access for Africa as "extreme nonsense":
.@montie It is extreme nonsense from @mattwridley who denies the harm to poor people from coal through climate change and air pollution.
— Bob Ward (@ret_ward) May 1, 2015
Ward's views were echoed by author and environmentalist Gregory Norminton
.@montie Tim, as long as you side with climate cranks your whole 'Good Right' project will have zero credibility. Plse speak to @MLiebreich.
— Gregory Norminton (@GDRNorminton) May 1, 2015
Richard Nourse, the founder of Greencoat Capital actually called for people to distance themselves from Ridley's sentiments.
Spot on. Tim - time to distance yourself on this from @mattwridley and @aDissentient https://t.co/4E5vKQBYEJ
— Richard Nourse (@RichardHCNourse) May 2, 2015
...and lest you think this was just an aberration, he was retweeted by Nick Mabey of major green NGO, E3G.
So I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that greens are not advocating treating today's problems as being of secondary importance. Indeed, the treatment of Lomborg suggests that there is a consensus among greens and many academics that addressing these problems now is wrong.