Climate Change Heresy?

Before I start today I want to assert that I am not a climate change denier. I am fully bought into global warming and its impacts and that man (although by no means all of mankind) has contributed to an increasing rate of warming.
What I am confused about is why we seem to care so much about the impacts of global warming. I am genuinely looking for a compelling argument to explain this because the main arguments that are generally used seem to fall short.

One of the strangest arguments used is that we need to “save the planet”: that we need to wrap our arms around the planet, beg for its forgiveness and make amends for the terrible ills we have brought upon it. I find this argument particularly odd because, obviously to me, the earth hasn’t a conscience and so doesn’t give a hoot about the environment. And if it could think and talk I don’t think the earth would care whether the environment consisted of 100% carbon dioxide or sulphur or whatever. We don’t need to halt climate change to save the earth; the earth will go on existing whatever the make-up of its environment.

Another argument for halting global warming is that the resulting changing landscape will cause the earth to be less habitable for us. Receding polar icecaps will cause rising sea levels; currently inhabited islands or coastlines will be reclaimed by the sea; deserts will increase in size; certain equatorial environments will become too harsh to live in; weather events will become more extreme. I deny none of this but surely one of the major reasons for the evolutionary success of human beings is that we are remarkably good at adapting to changing environments. So if the landscape changes, sea levels rise, will people not move to more hospitable environments or adapt to the climate they live in? Yes, there will be issues in moving (including migration) but as a race, on the macro level, this is not a big challenge.

Environmentalists often argue that we should attempt to halt climate change in order to preserve environments for other species that are entirely blameless. But the history of life is the history of evolution; species become extinct and species adapt and survive. I know that man-made climate change may be responsible for an increased rate of species extinction but, whereas some species will become extinct, very many others will survive - others will adapt slightly and then survive. It is an interesting moral/philosophical question whether we should be responsible for other species on the planet, and the religious may argue that humans, as the “chosen” species, should ensure the survival of other species because God placed other species on the earth for our benefit. But this religious argument is the only reasoning to justify an ongoing husbandry of the earth. If you accept the secular argument that life on earth, in all its glory and variety, is a random occurrence with no innate purpose then “saving the planet” for the furtherance of other species is not rational. To repeat, very many species will survive anyway.

Perhaps the most persuasive argument used for acting to avert climate change is to safeguard the environment for future generations – to bequeath the earth to them as we know it. But I still find this a curious argument. Billions of people from our own generation live on starvation rations and die of curable and preventable diseases on a daily basis. And yet, despite the human race having the means and technology to prevent starvation and to cure many fatal illnesses, we still let billions live in these conditions while a few people have untold riches and live in almost unimaginable luxury. And it’s generally the likes that have enormous comparative wealth that are most responsible for man-made climate change whereas the poor of the earth are blameless. So I don’t buy the “think about future generations” argument. We deliberately don’t look after the living, breathing current generation so the concern for future generations seems ingenuine to say the least.

So I’m not sure about the reasons for acting on climate change although I am open to persuasion. If anyone can give me an irrefutable argument for halting climate change then I will convert tomorrow.