Why the US will never get serious about climate change

This map sort-of explains why a majority of the US senate is opposed to climate legislation:

California, Florida and a narrow sliver of the East coast  will be adversely affected by climate change.  The rest of the country will be just fine. Because the senate is divided according to states and not population, the adversely affected states will always be a small minority -- regardless of which party is in power.

In the world too, there is a similar disparity of impact. Most climate change impacts will be on the highly populated parts of Asian and subsaharan Africa.  Matt Yglesias sees this disparity of impacts -- where the rich countries reap the benefits and the poor countries deal with the impacts -- as a morality play:

Presumably “I should be allowed to steal this Bangladeshi man’s land and sell it for profit” is not a free market position. Nor is “I should be allowed to have my cattle eat this Bangladeshi man’s grass and then sell it for profit” a free market position. I don’t think “I should be allowed to cut costs by dumping the toxic waste byproducts from my family on this Bangladeshi man’s agricultural land” makes a ton of sense as a free market position.

But I see this as just so much real-politick.