If anything – I think the economic costs of climate change policy are more immediate than the costs of climate change itself. So if you're arguing from a position of "insufficiently fearful of relatively distant threats", as you are here, I'm not sure why that priveleges anti-regulation over pro-regulation.

But the psychology of the discount rate is an important problem to be raised with any intertemporal market choices. So, I would add, is the fact that the institutions that structure private property price the economic consequences of regulation into market decisions already. They don't, however, price the economic consequences of your choices on other people (through climate change) into the market.

Not that any of that gives us an ideal policy – I just don't see how it militates against some sort of proactive policy.

No, it's politicians and entrepreneurs who are "counseling" me about the course of action I ought to take. They are operating with a vested interest in obtaining and solidifying power over everyday activity, or leveraging a position in a newly created market for a gas.

This is assuming that anyone's chices are actually having any significant influence on the Earth's climate changes. If these choices are not having a significant influence, why have any policy? It's this whole premise that may make this a non-starter.