[_carbyau_]

As a society if we care about our fellow humans - generally seen as a virtue to have - then we need to reduce our emissions etc etc.

As a rat race where the competition is between humans then rich people have a comparative advantage regarding how to survive the ravages.

So the future is less about avoiding climate catastrophe completely - that won't happen when the rich and powerful don't care.

The future is about surviving the issues until enough people die that emissions takes care of itself.

Either a lot of people die thus reducing emissions, or specific groups die thus reducing the capability to generate emissions on behalf of others. Or maybe enough tragedies happen that moral conscience does hold sway. Likely a combination of the above.

For supporting the continuation of my genes, maybe I should invest in property in Siberia/Alaska/Canada/Greenland/etc etc.

[manoDev]

The emissions are only a problem initially; it doesn’t matter if enough population perish, the warming will continue by self-reinforcing effects for an era.

[user____name]

There might be the emergency brake of geoengineering making life miserable enough that rapid decarbonizing and negative emmisions become attractive, preferably before global supply chains turn to mush.