There was a great TED talk (I'm not usually a fan - this was an exception) where the speaker went through the expected cost and disruption of all the batshit crazy ways people think they can cut down on emissions, including the thoroughly discredited carbon exchange. This includes the lost jobs, the social disruption, the direct costs, etc. It was staggering.

Not only that, but the cost was so overwhelmingly high that the speaker pointed out that those resources, if directed at 10 other problems, would yield better results because we still can't conclusively prove that cutting CO2 levels will have a material effect on the warming. If we just let the expected peaking of world population and natural (bright green) environmental developments fix the problem incrementally, sure, some people will have a shitty life, but it's fewer than if we try to "fix" this problem and waste the resources on it that we could spend more effectively on other problems.

Not only that, but I'm seeing a lot more talk about the possibility that the world is starting to go into a global cooling process, and that we didn't affect things as much as we might think (or even hope, in some perverse ways). Like I said, temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than they are today, and the 230-250 year cycle is set to change based on when the last Little Ice Age ended. The Little Ice Age caused massive disruption, too, but people blamed that on their sins, not on their emissions. Of course, the way Leftists talk about hydrocarbons we can be forgiven for thinking they're in a religious fit about cutting emissions.