Yes, but...

...quite possibly the bigger problem may be that the environmental movement was almost forced to justify reducing carbon emissions using economics arguments. Through all of the long public debate starting in the 1990s and going right on through today, it is assumed that reducing carbon emissions is always costly and no other benefits might ever arise from that. And thus, in a media world of allowing "both sides" of any issue discussed, the "debate" was never about whether mass species extinction due to reduced ecosystem viability is something that will happen or not and how we can or should deal with that problem. And it was also not about whether it is wise for us as a society to continue to support a system of inefficient energy and transportation infrastructure resulting from the status-quo regulatory uncertainty vs. the cost associated with businesses having to change how they operate.

The "debate" was framed as 'you want us to do something horribly expensive so show us that not doing anything will cost us way more.' Al Gore and the IPCC did a brilliant job of stepping up to that challenge. But it'd probably be wise to talk about all the other things associated with the way that we produce electricity and transport ourselves around every day and which ecosystems we're willing to give up down the road. That debate will probably never happen.