All right, let's go back to that assertion. I understood it and rejected it.
Let's break this down into two pieces, and handle the "why" first. This is a logical fallacy, as it creates a choice between "the moral and ethical" and "the corrupt and lying." (or whatever)
That's not hardly ever all there is as to the range of motivations for individuals let alone groups.
Basically it's lying by presenting two false choices. It's no more authentic than your using arguments of ridicule, or implying that someone that doesn't agree with you is a conspiracy wacko.
Secondly let's look at "steps taken to solve climate change."
Proposed steps singly or jointly have not been shown to have any more than a tiny effect on Co2 concentration.
Thirdly let's consider "create sustainable, renewable energy systems."
Many of these are over promised, overly expensive, underperforming junk.
"Fourth let's look at "getting rid of CO2 is good."
More logical fallacies. Corrected, the assertion would be "A 1% reduction in human CO2 emissions has XYZ value." No it is not a priori good to "get rid of CO2." CO2 is a natural part of the atmosphere and the earth and ocean.
I'll have to agree. Plant life needs CO2 in order to survive. The goal is to get the amount of CO2 at some kind of equilibrium rather than eliminate it completely.
I couldn't agree more CO2 is essential for lifeanimals exhale it, plants sequester it. It exists in Earth's atmosphere in comparably small concentrations, but is vital for sustaining life. Since the Industrial Revolution, energy-driven consumption of fossil fuels has led to a rapid increase in CO2 emissions, disrupting the global carbon cycle and leading to a planetary warming impact. The issues arise when there is excessive amount of CO2.