Evaluating Dr. Stevens' Argument on Climate Change

In a recent debate about climate change, a panel of experts discussed the implications of carbon emissions on global temperatures. Dr. Emily Harris argued that immediate reduction of carbon emissions is crucial to prevent further increase in global temperatures. In response, Dr. Mark Stevens contended that the economic implications of such immediate reductions outweigh the long-term benefits, suggesting that investment in technology for future carbon capture is a more viable solution. Dr. Sarah Lee countered that delaying action could exacerbate environmental issues and that a dual approach of immediate reduction combined with technological investments is necessary for sustainable progress.

Evaluate the arguments presented. Which statement best assesses the quality of Dr. Stevens' argument in relation to the broader context of climate action?