Let's concede for the sake of argument that climate change is real, and that it is man-made. Now, the question to ask is, what is the extent, and do the benefits received from the activities that cause climate change outweigh the effects? How does the cost of preventing the negative effects compare to the cost of suffering the negative effects? And finally, is the cost of the negative effects being borne by those who are actually causing the negative effects?
We were told decades ago that our shores would be under 10 feet of water by now. Gradual sea level elevation increases are not catastrophic. It is manageable. We can't justify spending billions of dollars to maintain the status quo if the cost of change is minimal.
Finally, there is no reason why the USA should bear the brunt of the cost of addressing climate change, especially if they are not the primary cause. We all know the polluters (China, India, etc.) are not being asked to pay for the damage they are causing. Instead, not only are we being asked to pay the price for compliance with stringent regulation of pollution, we are also being asked to pay for the failure of other countries to regulate at all. It's so unfair, so blatantly inequitable, that we are the equivalent of environmental cucks to even consider footing the bill for the evolving industrialized countries.
Tell me I'm wrong, Bro.