IMO, it is a distinction that is worthwhile.

What distinction, pointing out that the existing astronomical and mineralogical structures will withstand even our worst impulses? Or changing “Saving the planet” to “slowing our inevitable dissolution due to corrupt thinking and possibly saving some ducks, too”?

The distinction is already very well known - as we can see, people drive for hundreds of miles so they can hop out and tell us the actual physical structure of Earth will remain, most likely. It’s the insistence on focusing on that distinction which slows our ability to talk about the core causes for this climate disaster. And it sounds a lot like the previous 100 years of:

• there’s plenty of nature
• we can’t live like savages, we must pollute to make money
• what if we add lead to it and spray it all over everything and everyone? No knocks! Profit!
• What the heck is an ozone layer
• oh you're a tree hugger huh
• there’s no proof its caused by humans
• there are always periods of heating and cooling
• this is a Chinese hoax
• well you drink water so you're part of the problem
• i’ll never give up eating meat, what are you, gay?
• It’s too expensive to not destroy the environment
• oil prices are the key to liberty and freedom
• the future of clean energy is a nightmare because we’ll have to enslave humanity to extract rare minerals from protected wildlife areas to build large batteries
• it’s fine, the earth will survive. Sure we’ll die and everything we commonly consider animal life will be killed but - ya gotta go sometime