[raquo]

Well, as comfortable as you will be able get with global wars, refugees, food shortages, etc. going on.

Governments and countries are not very stable under these conditions. Probably shouldn't expect your wealth to crisis proof your life in this scenario. Won't hurt but we'll all be much better off organizing to avoid this future.

[doon123]

>> Well, as comfortable as you will be able get with global wars, refugees, food shortages, etc. going on.

I think the crisis will be contained to the poorest parts of the world. Especially the tropics. This area is going to be the first to bear the brunt of climate change related problems.

I dont foresee Global wars happening. The politicians are too smart for that. They will try to contain the damage to the extant that the richer countries ( US, Europe, Australia ) are not affected much. Ofcourse there will be shortages as global supply routes are going to be disrupted.

The most thought provoking scenario here is going to be what will happen with China. Maybe not being a democracy will prove to be a blessing in disguise for it. Having a pragmatic group of men leading the country is the best option in the face of upcoming doom. China may shed a lot of weight ( population), but it may just survive, because of its largely monoculture and more or less obedient population.

I see much of Africa, SouthEast Asia to completely gone by the next 100 years. They will be left alone by the rest of the world to fight the battle of survival, and the odds wont be great.

MiddleEast is already ravaged, but they may continue to survive because they have oil.

Most rich countries ( the leaders I mean ), may not be very displeased with the fate of the poorer nations. Because as far as they are concerned mass deaths in poorer nations is only going to reduce the carbon emission load on our planet.

[raquo]

Somehow I doubt that people in these countries will sit on their hands while dying off.

Mass migration will definitely happen, and might even be supported by their governments and armies. India, Pakistan and China have nuclear weapons to wave around.

US will likely be better off than Europe thanks to the oceans and a big army / navy. But it will not be a good time for anyone if it comes to this.

[onyeka]

> Because as far as they are concerned mass deaths in poorer nations is only going to reduce the carbon emission load on our planet.

But the wealthier nations are the ones producing majority of the carbon emissions.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-r...

Seems like you're counting on poorer countries to die off so you in the the richer nations can survive when it's the richer folks causing the problem. Like the resource loss from these continents wasting away won't affect them.

[TeMPOraL]

A part of the climate change calculation is that the poorer countries are actively improving their standards of living, and that means rapidly increasing their energy demands.

[Sharlin]

People in regions bearing the brunt of the change aren't just going to stay there. There will be mass migrations of possibly hundreds of millions, and no wall is going to stop them.

[PeterisP]

It's somewhat plausible that some of the potential targets of migration will choose to prevent this with military force, including nuclear weapons.

[Comevius]

"The politicians are too smart for that"

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/oct/09/austr...

Good luck with that.

[dubya123]

Mass Migration blows up your entire scenario.