Edit : minor addition. I was reading a comment the other day and found out helium can also result from other reactions outside of a star, such as the decay of a radioactive element, which ejects an alpha particle (which is just a helium molecule with special attributes, aka no electrons). The alpha particle crashes into something, picks up electrons and suddenly its a helium.

No, they are clearly making the following comparison.

1. For climate change : World is heating up, heading toward the result of mass extinctions. The most valuable resource is the time to act. Ten extra years to work on the root cause. Unsustainable emissions.

2. For Helium : A finite resource is being exhausted, heading toward a world with no helium (helium is typically created by one of the fusion cycles in the core of a star, fusion is a nascient technology on earth). The most valuable resource is time to act, +X% helium extra supply to address the root cause, unsustainable consumption.

In both cases, the root cause is being (mostly) ignored.

So they’re pointing out that if you have 800 finite helium, then suddenly you find out you have 880 helium… that hasn’t changed the finite nature of the helium. The root cause remains a “spending problem”. And they are likely annoyed that 880 ~> 880 results in, " Omg yay!" vs what should be, “Oh thank goodness, more time to address the root cause of consumption.”

Idk, was that not obvious? I’m not being facetious here, I’m really asking. Brings to mind the “curse of knowledge” fallacy where when you understand something you assume others do, and they often don’t, resulting in disjointed communication where the listener can’t grasp the idea. As condescending as this sounds I assure you its only because I’m not a writer, I’m legitimately making an attempt to communicate neutrally with you as we both seem to have genuine interest.

Anyway, corrections and such always welcome. All numbers in this post made up for illustrative purposes only.