Moondoong is spot-on regarding mitigation measures.
What climate scientists don't understand, but engineers do understand, is that much of our civil engineering infrastructure is designed to have a useful economic life, typically, of only 50 to 100 years.
So, looking at this time scale, why waste money in an ongoing attempt to preserve the status quo, when mitigation / adaptation / redesign at the time it is required is the more cost-effective route to take?
By way of example, consider a typical low-lying seaside suburb. Most of those houses within 100 years will have been torn down (the old 1950's 3 bedder on a quarter acre block concept didn't last long, did it?) So there's no real extra cost in rebuilding, because that rebuilding was going to happen anyway. [One could extend that analogy to almost all types of civil infrastructure - roads, bridges, drainage, sewerage, hospitals...you name it]
And if rising sea levels are a threat, there are two choices to make - either rebuild critical areas of the suburb, over time, in the same spot but on fill; or, amortise the value of the property (which is now original land value at purchase, converted to current dollars, but written down to zero) over that 100 years, and relocate elsewhere.
Yes, both of those options at the local level are costly, but those costs are surely small in relation to the enormously costly, and ultimately futile, global attempts in hoping to stabilise a climate arguably outside our control anyway.
Expand
