Which is my whole objection to the climate change issue. It's climate. There's good and bad no matter which way it goes. "Doing something" about climate change is nothing more than demanding people pay an enormous price to maintain the status quo (and even THAT requires an enormous leap in assuming that 1 - THIS model of dire climate change is right, 2 - We're also precisely right about the exact cause of the change, 3 - the prescribed solution, would, in fact, prevent that change), which might just be why so many of the powers that be are so invested in the idea.

We have a wide range of climates and environments on this planet, almost all of which can support human life. What's more, a disproportionate amount of land is in near-arctic conditions, so much so, that lots of SJWs claim world maps are racist for making the northern (white people) ends of the continents look bigger. If global warming actually makes a noticeable difference, a lot of shitholes are going to be less pleasant to live in, but most of Canada & Russia, the 3rd & 1st largest countries in the world, respectively, become a lot nicer to live in. Yeah, none of that belongs to my country...for now, but in the US, global warming might make the south less pleasant to live in, but the biggest state is Alaska. The 3rd or 4th biggest is Montana, and they're pretty damn empty. Maine is one of the largest & least densely populated in the Northeast. If the sea levels rise, there's lots of room in the interior.

The only candidate I'd vote for on the basis of his approach to inevitable global warming is the one who would say "Let's grab Greenland now. That's going to become prime real estate in a few years, so fuck Denmark and let's do it quick before the EU starts locking it down."