4 ms·
> more potential arable/livable landmass than the entirety of the US + Europe. That's fine if you want to spend trillions moving the cities of Europe and US to
by chimprich 7y ago
> more potential arable/livable landmass than the entirety of the US + Europe.
That's fine if you want to spend trillions moving the cities of Europe and US to Siberia.
It would be much cheaper, and require far less political co-ordination, to avert the CO2 emissions leading to climate change in the first place.
And even if you do take the incredibly drastic step of moving most of humanity to the Arctic circle, you still have the problem of runaway heating. What are you going to do when the climate changes for the places you have moved to?
Besides, I rather like having a range of different biomes available on my planet.
- pmontra 7y agoI'm definitely with you about prevention. > That's fine if you want to spend trillions moving the cities of Europe and US to Siberia. I don't even want to get into thinking why and if Russia [1] would let the people of Europe and the USA in, but that's only about 1 B people. There are many more out there. [1] The Nordic countries and Canada, and probably the south of Chile and especially Argentina, are similarly well positioned.
- derefr 7y agoYou assume any of those nations will still be around in 100K years. On those sorts of timescales, people aren't migrating; old civilizations are disappearing in those places and new civilizations are forming from scratch in the newly-livable places.