“A” is the earth warming, “B” is reduced carbon emissions, and “C” is reduced sea level rise.

Sixty odd years ago I enjoyed science where such theoretical manipulations could produce desired results, although other outcomes might tarnish such desirability, alas.

If a theoretical rise in sea level rates can be reduced or even reversed by taxing Carbon emissions, an outcome entirely at odds with my primitive beliefs, then why havn’t the bloody Dutch abandoned the dykes and just relied upon taxation to keep the North Sea at bay.

Instead of endless proclamations of thwarting sea level rises threatening atolls in the Pacific how about promoting taxation establishing further fertile areas from shallow seas around the globe as the Dutch have managed with dykes and pumps across the delta of three major rivers, the Rhine, Meuse and Schelt. 
Indeed could the billions extracted from poor taxpayers under the Paris accords be utilised to enhance the areas available for the millions of Bangladeshi people almost all of whom live under a real threat of submersion from Tsunnami and river flooding from the Ganges and Brahmaputra along with large areas of West Bengal in India.

Then again perhaps it will never happen as the wealth transfer is not about thwarting sea level rises, it is only all about rich getting richer and poor getting poorer eh, and too few have tumbled that fact, that should be as obvious as a wart on the arse of a pig that is also fed swill every day.