Decarbonization and abortion

At the Commonweal website, Anthony Annett has posted links to Margaret Archer's response  to a recent piece by Stefano Gennarini in which the latter (fairly, in my opinion) expressed concerns about Archbishop Sorondo's defense of the decision to include Jeffrey Sachs and Ban Ki-moon at a recent Vatican conference on climate change.  I don't want to weigh in on that dust-up, though (well, maybe a little . . . I think Archbishop Sorondo and Archer were simultaneously more defensive and aggressive than was warranted), and instead wanted to say just a bit about Anthony's statement, here, that:

So let the response to such provocation be: “I oppose abortion, but do you oppose decarbonization”? I would like to hear an answer to that question from Stefano Gennarini, George Weigel, Robbie George, Raymond Arroyo, Bill Donohue and all others who seek to downplay and dismiss these concerns.

I would argue that, from a moral perspective, opposing decarbonization is not that different from supporting legalized abortion—you might not be the acting moral agent, but you are still complicit in the structures of sin. Putting it another way, it might not be formal cooperation with evil, but it is certainly material.

I certainly do not "dismiss" concerns about the dangers posed to human well-being by failures to take care of our natural (as well as moral) ecology.  I do worry, though, about connecting too closely something as amorphous as "decarbonization" with the moral wrong of abortion.  I assume that it makes good sense and is the right thing to do to try -- in a way that makes sense and in which the reasonably foreseen costs are not exceeded by the reasonably foreseen benefits -- to "decarbonize" our local, national, and global economies (by, for example, facilitating the increased reliance on nuclear energy).

But, it also seems to me crucial to recall that, with respect to any particular elective abortion, we can say "those who performed and procured that abortion wronged the unborn child, who had a human right not to be violated, and it is unjust that our positive laws permitted that wrong to be done."  It is harder to say, when we observe our neighbor driving by on her way to drop the kids off at school on the way to work, "that neighbor of mine is committing a wrong and it is unjust that she is allowed to do so."

Now, Anthony talks about "material" cooperation and complicity in "structures of sin," and so he might well not disagree with what I said in the previous paragraph.  But, I guess I still have strong reservations about the suggestion that "opposing decarbonization" is similar to supporting abortion -- in part because I assume that none of thinkers Annett mentions "oppos[e] decarbonization" but instead oppose "the idea that decarbonization is a moral imperative that floats above cost-benefit analysis -- that is, the costs and benefits to the flourishing, health, and development of human persons -- of particular decarbonization proposals and policies."