[vkou]

> Can we instead of make some changes on local level that effectively work with the climate change or minimise the impact?

We can always get our towns ready to receive the millions of climate refugees we'll be creating.

[myshpa]

Towns have no future in a collapse. Too hot, too water/fossil fuel dependent, too unsustainable.

[vkou]

No, it's the other way around.

Towns and cities are actually far more resource efficient than rural and suburban sprawl.

The only inefficient thing in them is highrises. But five-story buildings are incredibly infrastructure-efficient. Walking through a midrise neighborhood puts you past more people per minute, than driving 120 mph through a suburb.

[myshpa]

> No, it's the other way around

When everything works as intended. In a collapse everything changes.

Imagine energy grid not working, no tap water, non-existent food supply, money is worthless ... such kind of future.

[vkou]

> Imagine energy grid not working, no tap water, non-existent food supply, money is worthless ... such kind of future.

Unless you're a subsistence peasant, which 99.9% of rural and semi-rural (suruban) people aren't, you're going to have the same exact problems from a lack of all those things.

[myshpa]

Yes, it's gonna end up badly for most.