Arguments for environmental regulations

The proper form of an argument for environmental regulations would be the following:

1. If the climate changes in the ways A,B,C, this will be the cause of a cost of $X to the economy.
2. If the regulation D is implemented, this will prevent the climate from changing in the ways A,B,C, and therefore prevent the cost of $X.
3. Regulation D will impose a cost of no more than $Y to the economy, which is less than $X.
4. Therefore, regulation D will cost less to the economy than the events that it would prevent, and is overall beneficial to it in that respect.

This would be the proper form if there were non-charlatans in the field, who are interested in the truth. It would have to include defenses of the three premises, of course. This form of argument cannot be found anywhere in the literature, as far as I know.