I think the longer term and overarching issue is that we don't have a shared reality. Science is not a method of finding truth for a large proportion of the American electorate. Academia, scientific institutions, and journalism might as well not exist if people don't believe in them.
If that's the case, then it's requires a much more in depth answer than "well look, we might do some good if we spend billions in (perceived) cost". I don't have the answer and perhaps there isn't one.
Just to pick out this point, I don't agree, I think actually most of the action to reduce emissions will be profitable. Low energy lighting pays its investment back in 6 months, on a ten year lifetime. Electric cars are significantly cheaper than petrol already in many countries and particular situations. Solar panels are similarly on the verge of profitable in high insolation, high energy cost places. Both are seeing continual reductions in cost, which will open up new markets, which will lead to economies of scale, which will reduce cost. And there are a lot of situations like housebuilders not putting in decent insulation, because they don't pay the heating bills, where good information can again provide the opportunity for investment with an amazing return. A large amount of the necessary reduction is not difficult, once you properly direct the market economy and industrial civilization against the challenge.
I'm personally a skeptic of the claims made by the AGW side and the alarmism pushed out by so many. The proposed AGW solutions are not feasible worldwide either which is what would be necessary to solve the problem they outline. I'm saying this not to get into a discussion about it at this time but to lay out why I would STILL support the agenda: essentially there are several great secondary benefits from doing what they recommend.
This is the biggest failure of the AGW side - they have terrible positioning and think you're stupid if you question science. If you tell people they're stupid (even if they are) they aren't changing their minds.
This is how you push the AGW agenda. "Let's say we're wrong. Here are the benefits of doing what we're suggesting and making some changes & investments":
- Better air quality
- It's good for national security - we no longer need to send large sums of money to hostile countries, many of which support terrorist organizations and other groups which are Anti-American / Anti-Western values.
- Cheaper energy
That's hard for anyone to argue, assuming the legislation is sensible.