I think you could probably sell the removal of subsidies on that basis.

The direct subsidies, sure - because that's tiny, relative to the cost of gas. The U.S. consumes about 7.5 billion barrels of oil per year, and direct subsidies are about $10-20 billion. So you're looking at maybe $2 per barrel or about four cents per gallon. You don't get up to the real money unless you start charging for externalities, which most consumers won't view as removing a subsidy, but as imposing a tax.

Also, climate change is going to affect the well-being of everyone. The estimated costs of climate change are truly staggering (trillions USD). Who do they think is going to pay for that? Not the fat cats. They'll somehow get government subsidies for something. It's us little people who will end up paying.

Again, that's probably not true. The U.S. is a geographically large, mostly well-above sea-level, already developed rich western economy that is situated entirely outside of the tropics. The damages of climate change are going to be born disproportionately by poorer folks living in less-developed Southern and low-lying countries in the Tropics. The costs of actually preventing climate change would fall disproportionately on the developed countries, and almost not at all on developing countries. Plus, the costs of climate change will be born in the far- and intermediate-future, while the costs of trying to prevent climate change will be born primarily in the immediate present and the near-term.

Most of the "little people" in the U.S. are probably correct in intuiting that taking action to fight climate change imposes costs on them that are not outweighed by the benefits of avoiding the damages from climate change. They aren't in a position where they can get big costs imposed on them today, based on the idea that it will spare the population of coastal regions in India and Indonesia the large negative impacts of climate change.