Your story about the monster is very reminiscent of the climate change debate. One side thinks we’re all going to die, and the other looks at the data and finds nothing at all to worry about. Often this means we debate whether the monster is real, with one side determined to prove that the monster will be unstoppable when it arrives. Thus that side doesn’t like easy suggestion on defeating the monster if it does, in fact, show up.
For example, if we really wanted to stop sea-level rise, with electricity costs set at $0.10 per kWhr, we could pump ocean water onto the arctic or Antarctic to 100 meters head height, costing $10 billion a year per mm/year of rise abated. So you’re looking at about $25 to $40 billion a year, which if spread evenly between countries by GDP, would be about $6 to $10 billion a year added to the US budget. Given the simplicity and low cost of the solution, there’s no way we’ll actually let it become a problem. Sea level rise is important merely because of the fear it can generate in the now, evidence that the monster is going to be unstoppable.