It's sort of ridiculous that Friedman has to present this argument for proactive action as something novel. 

Over a decade ago, the UK government commissioned a report on the "The Economics of Climate Change" that still stands as the most definitive study of the question. The authors, notably Sir Nicholas Stern, found "that cutting carbon emissions so that carbon dioxide peaked in the range of 450-550 parts per million would cost 1 percent of the GDP annually, but ignoring climate change could cause economic damage on the order of up to 20 percent of the GDP."

Friedman knows this, one would think. So should every policy maker. And here's the kicker, in 2006, science was laboring under the delusion that freezing atmospheric CO2 at 500ppm would be adequate to protect the human future. Now we know that levels that high would assure catastrophic warming and climate disruption. 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/climate-economists-stern-review-20827