Argument against is simple: Mitigating effects climate change as you suggest will be extremely expensive. (Protecting cities from rising sea levels is really th

Argument against is simple: Mitigating effects climate change as you suggest will be extremely expensive. (Protecting cities from rising sea levels is really the least of problems...) If we can do something much cheaper (prevent climate change) and there is a 99% chance of it working then of course you should; probibalistically... Yet despite what the math says, the path the world is on is obviously to do nothing. The efforts done now to stop man-made global warming is a rounding error.... The Paris agreement is short of what is needed, and no country is close to fullfilling the Paris agreement. So our children have to pay for the enormously more expensive mitigation instead.