The real question is if the cost to change is less than the current or future costs of inaction. I find what you said a manipulate style of argument used frequently today.

"What about lithium mines" ignoring the various oil disasters and the effects of drilling

"What if the vaccine had a 2% chance of killing me" ignoring the probability of dying from covid (made up numbers here)

I'm not claiming which side is right but these are often framed as the choice between the cost of the change and no cost.