A utilitarian approach to a basic and fundamental problem of climate change leaves us with undesired (and I must say unacceptable) consequences. The following is from Wagner and Weitzman's book "The Economic Consequences of a Hotter Planet":

"Why act, if your actions cost you more than they benefit you personally? Total benefits of your actions may outweigh costs. Yet benefits get spread across seven billion others, while you incur the full costs. The same logic holds for everybody else. Too few are going to do what is in the common interest. Everyone else free rides"

A deontic/paraconsistent/deontologic logic of obligations may present a decent analysis of this issue, it seems.