But aren't the negatives ultimately local? It's bad for X person because the seas will flood their home, or it will be too hot to live there, etc. etc. Even "weather being more chaotic" doesn't really mean much without loading it with all sorts of baggage.
The negatives are ultimately local in the sense that they're experienced by individuals who can only be in one location (generally speaking).
But just as localized positives can't be extrapolated in order to make value judgments about global warming (e.g. I had a good season due to weather this year, maybe global warming is good too), neither can localized negatives. For examples, if the climate were changing in a manner that's generally good and someone experienced a random bout of dangerous weather, it wouldn't make sense to extrapolate from that single isolated event an overall trend of worsening climate. People assess value to things based on localized individual experience, but these experiences don't translate to the scale of global warming.
In the case of global warming, it's helpful to be able to make associations between local weather patterns and overall climate shift. When people have an emotional investment in their property, their future, their children's future, etc. then appealing to pathos can be an effective way to communicate. But it doesn't replace the complexity of the overall picture, which isn't easily imaginable in a local sense. What can be said is that worsening conditions will become increasingly frequent while better conditions will become increasingly rare. This accounts (in a simplistic way) for the overall trend while also accounting for local experiences.
Sorry, the comments on NIMBYism etc weren't well clarified. The best Energy Return on Investment (EROI) technology we have is nuclear power. The two other forms that are passable but a far cry are hydro and oil. All three of these are and have been under attack for reasons good and bad, while the pipe dreams like solar and wind keep getting pushed. We should be expanding nuclear capabilities, not building wind and solars farms. Yes there's the radioactive waste issue, but that's a manageable problem when looking at the cost/benefits. But lets build wind farms that kill birds, change the local climate, and generate significant emissions in construction, transport, and maintenance.
Have you read Paul Hawken's book
Drawdown? It comprehensively, albeit concisely, compares findings from numerous studies and researchers over a plethora of proposed energy solutions (and other sustainable efforts).
Hawken includes nuclear energy as one combatant to global warming, while acknowledging the risk. By all accounts, pursuing nuclear energy will reduce emissions by 16.09 gigatons (by the year 2050), cost roughly $.88 billion and ultimately save $1.7 trillion. This is a serious option that climate researchers do consider.
They also consider wind power, which--according to research--will reduce CO2 by 84.6 gigatons (by the year 2050, onshore only), cost roughly $1.23 trillion and save $7.4 trillion.
Ultimately, Drawdown doesn't encourage pursuing only one option, but a combination. This is more plausible and feasible than an all-or-nothing approach.
Clear, directed policy would be moving cities near the coast away from the coast, and not just away from the coast but specifically to higher ground. This is even a very centralizing sort of policy wonks would like, because then you could "design perfect cities". Even though JC Scott would probably throw a fit lol. But no, let's shuffle the carbon outputs around with a market in carbon credits.
I don't see why population migration is a bad option. It's just an incredibly complex one, and then of course you run into the problem of regulating the movements of vast quantities of people. Something that should be considered, I'd say.
