Are there publications and articles or studies etc about how the rich are preparing for the impact of climate change?
Are there large swaths of Alaska being bought up? Farms in California being sold cheap? Mega security mansions popping up in New Zealand? Fresh water supply chains suddenly being consolidated under the same biz? Is this part of the reason why China is getting half of Africa in debt? To secure a food bowl and have a legitimate reason to deploy force when needed?
The propaganda and media cooptation is just staggering. It's extremely suspicious that very little attention is paid to the fact that reducing consumption will likely increase poverty.
If you trace, for example, the supply chain of some medicine you might use, or might depend on in future: The machinery, chemical refinery, transport, sourcing or resources, management, markets, and infrastructure below all that.
All of this will get orders of magnitude more expensive if we reduce carbon emissions. You will not be able to afford medicine if you need it, and possibly die of a horrible death, e.g. from an infection and without painkillers.
In the meanwhile, anyone raising these issues is defamed as climate change denier.
You have a kernel of truth there which isn't talked about enough (the fact that CO2 consumption brings advantages which reduce death and misery AND potentially reduce further CO2 consumption as well, in a "you gotta spend money to make money" way).
Unfortunately you are wrapping it in delusional hysteria such as "you will die of a horrible death from an infection without painkillers". So you're getting down voted because you are completely ignoring how things such as subsidies work.
> Unfortunately you are wrapping it in delusional hysteria such as "you will die of a horrible death from an infection without painkillers". So you're getting down voted because you are completely ignoring how things such as subsidies work.
Are you denying that reducing consumption drastically increase the chances of such a scenario? Of course what I wrote is only an illustrating, but likely plausible scenario, one of many ways in which it will increase ecological harshness.
Drastically increasing is meaningless if it's still an insignificant chance before and after. This is just not how things work and it's not a "plausible scenario", simply because we wouldn't let that happen.
We are barely able to give up pure leisure and convenience when faced with doomsday scenarios. You're under the impression the first thing that would go in such a scenario would be the life-saving stuff?
Production of eg. healthcare would absolutely be affected but that would just mean it would be more expensive for governments. Good example: your vaccine is free because governments invested collectively trillions of dollars into their production. It's free despite being one of the most expensive things we've done lately.
> You're under the impression the first thing that would go in such a scenario would be the life-saving stuff?
I think once we admit nature to be more important than humans, we will quickly slip on the slope and reduce consumption too far. Politics is largely dumb, so the risk is there. What you call leisure and dispensable is someone else's existence (e.g. the tourism industry). Central redistribution is hard and mostly does not work and gets abused. There are few historical examples in which it worked well and many in which it has failed.
Are there publications and articles or studies etc about how the rich are preparing for the impact of climate change?
Are there large swaths of Alaska being bought up? Farms in California being sold cheap? Mega security mansions popping up in New Zealand? Fresh water supply chains suddenly being consolidated under the same biz? Is this part of the reason why China is getting half of Africa in debt? To secure a food bowl and have a legitimate reason to deploy force when needed?