The planet won’t be destroyed though. Some areas will just become less habitable for humans. And that can be off-set with money (for example by paying for air conditioning). So your premise is faulty.
You’re not considering larger problems like food supply, displaced peoples, and infrastructure damage. Those things will effect everyone. Sure, with money you can initially buy security, food, and comfort but only to an extent. There’s a breaking point where money stops mattering anymore.
I think it’s fair to equate inhabitable with destroyed from a human perspective, especially considering that your assertion that it won’t be complete is itself not universally agreed upon.
That’s why billionaires have houses and bunkers in places that are the last to be affected by climate change. They just need to survive long enough to die of old age while living comfortably.
That’s why we need to make sure that the billionaires starve to death and never come out
But a select few have so much money, they can ignore the consequenses for the duration of their lives. They don’t care what happens after that anyway.
Can they, though? I really cannot understand the appeal of spending one’s old age in a bunker. Not to mention knowing that your grandkids (most of them have multiple kids and seem to disproportionately care about “legacy”) will inherit an uninhabitable planet. You can survive in a bunker, but you cannot, for example, grow all kinds of exotic fruit in a bunker. You cannot take long walks in a bunker (I know they’re building huge bunkers but even that will get old after a couple years). Ultimately, they’re building life term prisons for themselves and their families, which is somehow fitting even if little consolation.
They don’t give half a shit about their grandkids. They didn’t get to where they are by caring about anyone else. They’re sociopaths.
They won’t really need bunkers to live the rest of their lives. The bunkers they’re making are in case of war and short term natural disasters. The surface won’t be unlivable in their lifetimes. Again, nothing after their death matters to them.
Most of the billionaires of today won’t reach the bunker stage, they will be dead before the surface becomes uninhabitable. Global warming will hit poor countries the hardest first but richer countries will be able to mitigate the effects for longer. The US will be able to mitigate the effects of global warming for much longer than say Afghanistan.
There’s already floods, heatwaves and tornadoes. Sure there’s much less death and destruction on a bigger scale, but their immediate surroundings won’t stay constantly enjoyable much longer. I happen to live in a place that’s too cold to comfortably enjoy the outdoors for most of the year - and full of mosquitoes for the remainder. Trust me, it takes a toll on your mental health really fast. I don’t think they realise that.
Right but billionaires have enough money that they can relocate to places that don’t have those issues. Their wealth insulates them from the consequences.
They have so many houses they can change their immediate surroundings whenever they feel like it
The money won’t matter.
Climate change will not destroy the planet. Climate change will make the planet uninhabitable for humans.
The planet will be here until the sun explodes, humanity will not. I wonder what will replace us.Climate change will make the planet uninhabitable for humans.
No it won’t and not a single credible study claim otherwise.
One group of people claims the entire thing is a hoax and another thinks it’s going to make humans go extinct. Classic example of both being wrong.
Why is it that we can’t just accept bad things as bad but we need to add color to everything and pretend it’s even worse than it actually is. Spreading this kind of misinformation causes an immense amount of pointless anxiety in people.
I mean… obviously it won’t make the whole planet inhabitable, but billions will die when 90% of the planet is inhabitable. The last of which might be wiped out when the world fights over access to those remaining 10%.
No, those are still completely made up numbers. The estimated number of excess deaths under the worst case scenario range from 7 to 15 million people annually by 2100.
Which scenario are you referring to? IPCC? Because one of the possibilities I’ve seen is that clouds will stop forming over land. Not to mention ocean acidification. That will kill far more.
This is just heat/cold related deaths.
Trinosaurs.
The fuck type of showers are you people taking
Getting stoned before a shower is one of life’s simple pleasures
When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can’t eat money.
All the money in the world is meaningless, regardless of climate change.
It’s also meaningless if you spend your life at work.
“You can’t eat money.”
Reminds me of the song “the seed” by aurora
Climate change isn’t going to destroy the planet. The world has been a much warmer place in the (geological) past than it is projected to become, without triggering an apocalypse. There will still be large areas of land that support food production and a pleasant lifestyle, for those with the resources to aquire and hold that land.
Hydrocarbons come from plankton and trees. Life will continue like it did millions of years ago. Uprooted people will just give more power to those in control.
The weather will just make farming output decline, food will be insecure, which gives more power to the people who can own land and defend it against starving masses.
Read about the French revolution.
The French royals didn’t have mechadogs to protect them, or social media to distract their subjects. I think they believe themselves safe this time (but I hope they’re wrong)
The Bourgeoisie toppled the Aristocracy by using the starving masses. Only the Bourgeoisie is left. Who should organize and finance a revolution?
