john_kidder said:
Two general issues, though: 1) reduce the use of fossil fuels, 2) prepare to spend vast resources helping populations around the world deal with the effects that are already certain.
The 2nd one John is a darn near impossibility because the folks chosen to oversee something that large will waste more than what gets put to good use.
If it's Government run, it'll cost 3X what it should and not make a dent (Canadian Gun Registry as one example), if it's Corporate run it'll cost at least 2X what it should and 75% off all of that money will disappear or be funneled to "Friendly Corporations" (Haliburton).
Debt relief won't solve anything, sending food won't solve anything, infrastructure needs to be built and maintained by the populations that live in those regions and farming needs to happen so they can be self sustaining, and commerce needs to grow. All of those things, in the short term, 50 - 100 years will consume fossil fuels as ships , planes, heavy equipment need to travel with supplies and work the areas for growth.
Then there is the oppressive weather conditions that make much of the areas unlivable, those are the undeveloped areas.
The developed areas, Europe, Asia are mass producing products to sell here in NA and are not concerned about the future, aside from what their Politicos say.
I don't totally discount what some of the Ecophobes are trying to say, but there is just too much mistrust in me from those saying it. And Science, being just that, is never in agreement, I think it goes against the grain. There are always more questions that come from some of the answers. For every article on the pro side you can find a con so you can choose which side to believe, on anything.
Just my $0.02 CAD where's my change?