Michael Gerson tries hard to bring his genuine compassion to his genuine conservatism. In his eloquent writing, the two often come together in a form that even this genuinely skeptical Unitarian Universalist, mushy-middle liberal finds compelling.

But not always.

Mr. Gerson's op-ed this morning in the Washington Post reminds us that climate change deniers ignore our moral obligation to current and future generations:

Since even moderate climate changes could have dramatic consequences, how much risk are we willing to tolerate? What value do we put on the suffering of poor and vulnerable nations? What emphasis do we place on the welfare of future generations?

And he chides "many" environmentalists for indulging in unproductive partisan strategies:

Yet many environmental leaders seem unpracticed at coalition-building. They tend to be conventionally, if not radically, liberal. They sometimes express a deep distrust for capitalism and hostility to the extractive industries. Their political strategy consists mainly of the election of Democrats.

Then he reserves particular scorn for a "disturbing minority of the environmental movement" who "seems to view an excess of human beings, not an excess of carbon emissions, as the world's main problem." His evidence:

In two recent settings, I have heard China's one-child policy praised as an answer to the environmental crisis -- a kind of totalitarianism involving coerced birth control or abortion. I have no objection to responsible family planning. But no movement will succeed with this argument: Because we in the West have emitted so much carbon, there needs to be fewer people who don't look like us.

I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. In fact, we have worked with advocates for reducing unsustainable consumption patterns (like dependence on oil and coal) for fifteen years and with other advocates who promote responsible family planning. Indeed, it's often the same advocates. One of the most thoughtful people at the intersection of population, environment, and reproductive health and rights is our friend Laurie Mazur, who co-authored a thoughtful blogpost this week taking aim at retrograde efforts to link environmental damage to illegal immigrants.

So please - let's not tar climate change advocacy with the "cares more about bears than people" trope on the basis of two (two!) holdovers from the "Population Bomb" generation. It's a concern unworthy of Michael Gerson's subtle mind - and certainly not a reason to delay the building of broad, trans-partisan coalitions for action to reduce carbon emissions.

Full disclosure: Sadly, an intellectually (and chronologically) old codger at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival provided one of Mr. Gerson's two examples. I attended the same session. I suspect his second example is similar. I could have strangled the codger in question (though there's a good chance he was an Aspen trustee). But I recognize him to be representative of a small, aging and frankly ignorant minority, rather than anything remotely representative of those seriously responding to the moral and political challenges of climate change that Mr. Gerson acknowledges. So let's get to it, and leave the straw men out in the cold.