Also the news here is that DARPA is interested in this, not that oysters protect shorelines – this has been known for some time. Thinking about climate change through the (slightly more practical) lens of national defense is a smart approach, perhaps it will bypass a lot of the B.S. involved in the discussion.
1. The whole world needs to bring petroleum burn rates down to sustainable levels (China and the USA will need to make the right choice for their grandchildren.) This doesn't mean complete elimination of petroleum fuels or chemical mining operations. Note, investors that promulgate sustainable management will cost everyone their job are just manipulative liars, and environmentalists that refuse to acknowledge there is a scientifically sound balance are just as naively idealistic.
2. There is a complex physics model that describes what's happening. The only controversial counterarguments are generally from non-scientific dubious communities with questionable political motives.
3. No one wants to admit the earth will return to normal about 50 000 years after human full/partial extinction events. Sustainable energy policy is a national security issue, as we will be living like cavemen if a cascade environmental change event hits us early.
4. The profits made from sustainable energy policy will enrich communities that make the right call. Or alternately desperation driven hostilities await those that choose to give their children a wasteland.
One can invest in technology that creates wealth, or prepare for endless conflict. As a people, we share a common future with the consequences from decisions all people have chosen today.
Be kind to yourselves, and have a fantastic day =3