US, Canada, and some parts of Europe could also have a similar "silent" perspective... things will get worse, buy they'll be able to maintain a competitive advantage (so relatively speaking it could get better for them) at feeding people and keeping them healthy (and helping them live longer - don't undermine future monopolies on real anti-aging and medical techs... if you're a 140+ IQ individual and have a change of living 20+ yrs in another country, you will emigrate there), so all the world's best brains will "drain" towards them, giving them even more advantages.

China should invest seriously into making itself more a more livable / enjoyable country and into securing its agriculture instead of their grand space, AI and social engineering projects, if they want the slightest chance of competing in the new game...

The US isn't that devious. It's more akin to a dog eating a trail of kibbles made of fossil fuels. Won't look up, can't stop, keeps tasting good.

Ah, yes and no. There's probably a very serious assessment of risks at a national level, and the result: Heartland productivity, more droughts in SW, more floods in SE, better mobility in bearing strait, yadda yadda ... just kind of seemed OK and not worth fretting over vs the then-perceived economic cost of pivoting away from fossil fuels.

well, when the most devious thing ou can do is less/nothing... this is the big nasty ethical dilema with climate change and access to medicine... maybe evils vs stupid is just two sides of the same coin...

How climate change might benefit Russia, two articles over on https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/16/magazine/russ... and https://medium.com/predict/how-climate-change-is-transformin...

The upsides are seldom discussed but there seem to be many regions that would net benefit.

For example, if average temps do indeed warm as some predict much of the Midwestern US and Canada would enjoy longer growing seasons which would result in more tillable farmland and larger yields.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere also leads to larger agricultural yields. Commercial greenhouses pump CO2 into their greenhouses to raise the CO2 to 1200 ppm or so. This can double or even triple yield.

You are fully ignoring the fact that it's not just warming, but also an increase in climate chaos. They are just as likely to get mega freezes randomly, along with regular tornadoes or droughts as they are to get longer growing seasons. Calling it "warming" is a misnomer.

Not quite. Calling it "warming" was found to be inconvenient once the observations failed to confirm the models.

"Climate chaos" is the new sexy, focus-group tested term. Not based on science, but a solid foundation of confirmation bias.

A EE professor I used to respect once told me he doesn’t believe in global warming or whatever because some ice core data was taken from Siberia, and they probably do sloppy science.

You put things in scare-quotes until your house is blown down

The area I live in has experienced floods, tornados, blizzards, thunderstorms since time immemorial.

The frequency and intensity of these events hasn't changed, but our ability to measure, capture and share the effects with a large audience sure has. Something to think about.

Just common sense. Russia has vast resource-rich areas in Siberia that with global warming would become habitable. They have relatively few large coastal cities (compared to the US and Europe). And the Arctic sea being clear of ice year round would open up a shorter/faster shipping route for China-Europe than the current one through the Suez canal.

Edit: Also to address your question about whether there are others, I'm Finnish and have strongly considered buying land in Lapland as a long-term investment (thinking grandchildren+ here).