You're Right, We're Doomed: The 12 Arguments Every Climate Denier Uses

 The arguments:

1. “Ultimately, it’s individuals and consumers who are responsible for taking action”
2. “The UK’s carbon footprint is tiny compared to China’s, so it doesn’t make sense for us to take action, at least until they do”
3. “But if we start to reduce emissions, other countries will just take advantage of that to increase their emissions”
4. “People are developing new, green technology right now, we just need to wait for it”
5. “We’ve already declared a climate emergency and set ambitious targets”
6. “We need to work with fossil fuel companies, their fuel is becoming more efficient and we’ll need them as a stopgap before widespread renewable energy use in the future”
7. “People respond best to voluntary policies, and we shouldn’t try to force people to do anything”
8. “Taking action on climate change will generate huge social costs. The most vulnerable people in our society will suffer the most from increased taxation”
9. “Abandoning fossil fuels would slow the growth that has lifted billions of people out of poverty” 
10. "We shouldn’t act until we’re sure we’ve got perfectly-crafted policies to address climate change”
11. “Any effective measure to reduce emissions would run counter to human nature and the way we live now, and so it would be impossible to implement in a democratic society”
12. “It’s too late to prevent catastrophic climate change and we should get ready to adapt or die”

These arguments are from "The 12 Arguments Every Climate Denier Uses – and How to Debunk Them" at vice.com.

Basically the say that "given the current structure of incentives, pollution is more attractive than less pollution.

The "current structure of incentives" enables a small minority to use that structure to take most of the goods created by society for themselves, leaving little for the rest.

 

A global result of a fair distribution of resources at current population levels would probably mean that most in the West and the upper and even middle-classes in the rest of the world would be less-well-off than they are now.  But it would probably make the majority of the world better-off than they are now.  

But such a radical redistribution of wealth would not happen without a very big fight.

In the best case scenario, this fight would only occur using poison darts.  Using only poison darts -- not fire, no explosives, no big machines -- would mean that the physical infrastructure would be unharmed -- roads, bridges, buildings, communication would be preserved.  If, then, half the population were killed, then resources per capita would double; if 80% of the population were killed, then everyone would have resources at the level of the current US -- where 5% of the world population consumes 20% of its resources.

Of course, humans don't play so nice.