We have 20 years -- at the very most -- to prevent mass extinction

Link:  http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/opinions/sutter-wwf-sixth-extinction/index.html

Many scientists believe that we are heading towards a mass extinction that could wipe out 3/4 of animal species.  This has had happened five times previously in Earth's history but this would be the first time due to human activity.  This will ultimately be the result of burning fossil fuels and the subsequent rise in Earth's temperature.  As people argue over efficiency and equity during this election and policies that will or will not bring back jobs to America, it is concerning to think about the inevitable consequences of climate change and the lack of media coverage.  From the Dakota Pipeline that puts many at risk of water contamination to the fact that we are in the process of wiping out species that have lived on this planet far longer than our ancestors.  Given the fact that we discount the benefits of the future because we are myopic by nature we still need to heed the warning of this article.  These are not lost causes as the article clearly states, "We know how to slow the rate of extinction. We need to ditch fossil fuels to blunt climate change. We need to protect more of the land and ocean on behalf of biodiversity.  We need to stop the spread of invasive species, and we've got to get a handle on illegal trades like that in ivory, which Barnosky said could wipe out Africa's elephants in 20 years if poaching rates continue." How we approach these issues from an efficiency and equitable perspective will be important, but I worry about the lack of interest in these matters and media coverage.  Is it "equitable" to only invest in more affluent areas' environments? Is it "efficient" to invest in the environment of future generations, taking away potential productivity of today?