4chan may be the medium, but those charts were generated with some data. It's unfortunate the charts don't include their source; I'd love to see the underlying data/reports.
Three reasons:
1) The strength of industrial and energy lobbyists, for whom climate change would mean stronger environmental regulations, which would interfere with their profitability.
2) Environmentalism (and by extension climate change, FKA "global warming") is traditionally seen as "left-wing," associated with effete liberals, tree-hugging hippies and feminism, which automatically causes the right wing to oppose it on principle.
3) Conservative Christians believe that God gave the world to humans to dominate and conquer, and climate change challenges their assumptions about the world and humanity's place in it.
There's the genuine concern that the solutions being proposed will squander our lead over our competitors, by basically redistributing wealth from developed to developing economies[1], and that the people most loudly clamoring for action also tend to be the most opposed to solutions like nuclear power, that would allow us to cut emissions without sacrificing our self-interest as much or at all.
Also, you talk about the profitability of companies as if it is isolated from the prosperity of ordinary people. It's not. And higher energy prices wouldn't just affect a few companies, but just about every single industry.
Environmental activists aren't helping their case when they engage in behavior and lifestyle choices perceived as whacky, and worse, try to impose them on others. People aren't going to abandon the comforts of modernity, so trying to persuade them to isn't a good strategy.
[1] For example, the theory of deals like Kyoto and Paris is that developing economies can keep increasing emissions while developed ones have to immediately cut. Fair, but fairness between countries is naive. The US should do whatever it can to maintain and grow its lead over China.
I dislike broccoli therefore people saying we should eat fruit and veg are liars?
Understanding and engaging with the underlying motivations of the opinion leaders is going to be more effective than just demonizing or ridiculing the people who follow them.
> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.
This whole framing is part of the problem, because it implies things like "if Bangladesh is going to be flooded by climate change, this is actually good for the US garment industry"
> whatever it can
How many deaths?