I'm with you there. That speaks to my priorities.
For me it's security first, economy second, environment a distant third because let's face it: a bomb means immediate damage and mayhem. A depression, well, we know full well what a depression can entail. But gradual rising of the seas over 100 years? Okay, so the landscape slowly changes. Some land is covered by water as other land is uncovered by thawing ice. So? By that time, most edifices built along the coastline will be old and crumbling anyway. So move inland. Like I said, we've got decades and decades to do it in.
Look at it this way: if the warming were real but had NOTHING TO DO with human activity, what attitude would we take? Cope, that's what. Deal with it. Adapt. So if there is ever any question of choosing between the economy and the environment, bye-bye New Jersey, hello warm Minnesota. That's my stance.
Agreed, we would have to cope. But because there are things that we can do (and things that would reduce our vulnerability to terrorism to boot), it's not a realistic or useful position to say "let's do nothing".
Just a four meter rise in sea level would cause my house on a hill in San Diego to become ocean front property. It would also inundate our inadequate airport, and we would finally be forced to build a new one. I say accelerate carbon emissions. Let's get this process going. I could use the extra equity in my home and a decent airport. Of course, getting into my office building downtown might be a little awkward, but with my new home equity, I could retire. Come on, guys, buy some SUV's, put in some pools, and have more children, I could use some help here.