Much of the discussion on the "low-hanging fruit" post revolved around a hypothetical question: would tackling secondary climate forcings (such as soot and methane) pave the way for stronger climate policies down the road, or further defray action on carbon dioxide, which happens to be the more pressing long-term threat? At this juncture, political and economic realities would seem to argue in favor of Andy's incrementalism approach, which he laid out here and here in that thread. Indeed, his argument is similar to the one made in the recent NYT op-ed: