cost/benefit analysis, i do agree with though. or maybe a “risk-adjusted” cost/benefit. the biggest disagreement i have is with people who think climate change is inherently bad, rather than believing specific outcomes/effects of climate change are bad. when you unpack climate change often the bad things are common across catastrophes caused by other disruptions, e.g. food/water insecurity is something we could see both from climate change or large-scale war. certain ways of thinking about the situation might lead a person to believe that addressing these effects is the way to make humanity more bulletproof, rather than trying to prevent the several distinct causes (CO2 emissions being one of them) that lead to the real problems. though it’s never an all-or-nothing, more like “reduce the causes to the point that you’re not reducing our ability to respond to the effects”. cost/benefit analysis, like you say.