No. of Recommendations: 2
Perhaps. A lot of people (probably even the majority) are going to have their lives shattered. The poor can't afford to move. Even if they own their little piece of land, they won't be able to sell it and buy something where it isn't swamped by an ocean, or desertified by lack of rain. Sure...albaby's-babies-babies should be just fine leaving Miami.Perhaps, but a lot of people (possibly even the majority) would have their lives shattered if we implemented the steps necessary in order to
actually keep temps below 1.5 C. The poor can't afford to move - which means that if you adopt policies that disrupt their precarious current situation, it's devastation for them. To use a current example, the mayor of London may lose his position in large part because of his support for the expansion of the Ultra Low Emissions Zone - because a lot of poor people can't afford to pay that fee, can't afford to buy a low-emitting vehicle, and can't afford to change their lives so that neither is necessary:
https://www.politico.eu/article/london-mayor-sadiq...And that's a miniscule, single, and utterly marginal policy implemented in a single city (albeit a big one). The actual range of policy proposals necessary to fight climate change would have a much broader effect on poor people.
It's absolutely true that one answer is to have the government help the poor people out, which is frequently noted as part of Green proposals. But the same is true of living with climate change - if the poor can't afford to move, have the government help pay for them to move, the same way the government would (and is) helping some (but not all) Londoners try to get into more efficient cars that they can't otherwise afford.
