• superkret
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    What dramatic action is there even to take?
    Relocate 40% of the world’s population further inland?

    Hmm, actually sounds more realistic than a successful collective effort to reduce carbon emissions.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      I would say both mass relocation and doing something about carbon emissions would be dramatic action. I’d much prefer the latter. I’m doubting even the former will be done.

      • floofloof@lemmy.caOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It seems likely mass relocations will be reactive, and the areas where people try to relocate will fight hard not to accept desperate people. Look at Europe right now, where refugees are being deliberately drowned so countries don’t have to accept more people. And that’s before these problems become widespread.

        The suffering directly caused by climate change will be bad - homelessness, starvation, lack of water, deadly heat and storms, etc. But we will add to that suffering when the whole world starts fighting over it.