It's not a counter argument, but more of a questioning of your argument. I think it's an argument of the same type as Pascal's Wager, though more based on reali

It's not a counter argument, but more of a questioning of your argument. I think it's an argument of the same type as Pascal's Wager, though more based on reality. I don't think that there will be no places with a good climate and no refugees, at least that depends on what you consider a "place". Maybe no countries, I could agree with that, and even for that, you could argue that island countries could easily block refugees. All of that to say, it feels like you're saying to people "either you fight climate change, or you will get refugees", while in real life that's not really what will happen, I think. I don't think you're completely wrong, but for example the average person can't really run away from refugees, but also can't make a difference in fighting climate change, so many of them will probably fight climate change and get refugees; while a very rich person can change more things but also run away more easily.