> For every degree Celsius of warming, global food production is likely to decline by 120 calories per person per day.

This is alarming but I think some nuance has been deliberately skipped. I just can’t believe that we will simply produce less food because of temperature increase. Last 40 years are counter examples.

Does it really account for the ability to account for increased demand in food? More money will be shifted to food production etc.

There should be more discussion around Canada and Russia's vast unpopulated tundra's. They don't need to accept climate refugees, but if they make it arable or industrialize it, it might help the rest of the world cope with climate change effects and enrich those countries.

Russia has geographic proximity to east china as well as Arabia (and not so far from Africa either), a direct border with close to 50% of the world's population. Canada has proximity to Russia as well as aerial proximity to Europe. It's really sad that there is an actual housing crisis in Canada. It is a failure of imagination, ambition and administration. Canada has the capability and resources to be a legitimate economic super power,similar to the US and China.

Look at Dubai in the desert, they are a mostly immigrant region and they've essentially transformed that hostile desert into an economic cash-cow. Canada is far more desirable for immigration with orders of magnitude more resources like fresh water (the most in the world!!), space and access to trade. The problem I think is that they focus on post-industrial economic development. They want IT and medical workers not factory and construction workers. Develop housing near existing cities instead of building new cities and investing in R&D make the harsh and cold areas livable. Which is more hostile? An area with excess heat, little fresh water and useless desert sand or an area with lots of cold, lots of fresh water and a diverse soil/mineral ecosystem?

In general, people don't need to go to mars or another planet. We need to conquer the cold. We literally have Antarctica waiting to be populated if nothing else pans out.

Why are climatologists not more practical I wonder (Honestly asking, not rhetorical)? We all know warning people about the impending collapse of ecosystems doesn't have enough of an effect right? Can't do much about ocean current and acidification of the ocean. But how about artificial seas/lakes in the arctic for fishing? Assuming existing sources of cash-crops fail, what are the alternative? Where can rice be grown artificially at large scale, or naturally after the world heats up a bit more?

I'm thinking a lot is possible with a nuclear power plant and proximity to enormous amounts of fresh water, wood and building space.

I'm just saying, it looks like the world is past the prevention stage for climate change, but minimizing its impact might be the best way to focus resources and efforts.

Unlikely.

Givens: more heat

        more water vapor

        more CO²

        more humans* with more machines**

* agricultural machinery and technology is entering a new era of productivity and resiliance.

currently a huge number of people are farming useing primitive methods all over the world, slash and burn farming, and areas in europe still useing horses and oxen for motive power.

hunger is man made