In light of the worsening climate crisis, it is not surprising that climate ethics has taken an increasingly radical turn. A recent example of this is “emissions sufficientarianism” which holds that only emissions necessary for survival or decency are now permissible. In response, this paper seeks to problematize the notion of emissions sufficientarianism, but also broader swathes of the climate ethics literature, by suggesting that if we are serious about the demands of intergenerational justice and sincere in wanting to avert a climate catastrophe, any attempts to impose ecological austerity or carbon rationing at the suggested levels would, in fact, seriously hamper our collective ability to respond to climate change while, presumably, triggering a strong populist backlash. Since emissions reductions alone are no longer sufficient to prevent dangerous climate change, it is argued that emissions sufficientarianism, and the rapid economic contraction that it would entail, is incompatible with the kind of coordinated large-scale draw-down of carbon needed to return atmospheric concentrations to safe levels.