As I wrote in Some sceptics make it a habit to be wrong:
Perhaps what is required in the climate change "debate" is for people most directly and immediately affected by rising sea levels to start legal action. The US government may be dismissive of the effect of their contribution to global warming on Bangladesh or Tuvulu, but if Florida or North Carolina were to sue the Federal government, perhaps the situation could change.In a recent WSJ article—not usually the place to read fair and balanced coverage on Climate Change—entitled 'Risky Business' Report Aims to Frame Climate Change as Economic Issue, Alicia Mundy writes:
The report, which says climate change could cost the country billions of dollars over the next two decades, is the product of a bipartisan group of former cabinet officers, lawmakers, corporate leaders and scientists. In an interview, Mr. Paulson said the goal is to depoliticize the climate-change debate and instead focus on how it poses an economic risk to U.S. businesses. "The whole point was to have a bipartisan group who agreed on the nature of the problem, which is that climate change is a huge economic risk," said Mr. Paulson, who served under President George W. Bush. The study concludes that within the next 15 years, higher sea levels, storm surges and hurricanes could raise the annual price tag for coastal damage along the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico to $35 billion. Some Midwestern and Southern agricultural areas could see a decline in yields of more than 10% over the next five to 25 years due to increased drought and flooding, unless farmers adapt their crops, according to the study.