fair enough but is this really the least destructive action you could take?

This is such ridiculous alarmism. This is one of the worst case predictions and is unlikely to occur.

Most likely you'll see gradual migrations over the next 100 or so years away from coastal areas, probably not too much larger than typical migrant and infrastructure turnover.

Please stop relying on journalism to make your decisions regarding climate change. It's pure dogma by completely ascientific liberal arts majors.

If you read the IPCC reports yourself (they're huge but you can read the introductory summaries) they're much less certain about the future. Meanwhile alarmism has a real cost now, if you foolishly allow it to influence policy.

And on the subject of habitability, why is it that media rarely, if ever, runs stories regarding the increase in arable land that comes with thawing permafrost? How much habitable land will be gained from climate change?

And just to emphasize the short sightedness of "banning" fossil fuels as you originally proposed, good luck getting food and medical equipment (and pretty much anything else) to the hundreds of millions of people living in cities without diesel for trucks.

I didn’t propose banning anything. At most, my plan would crank up the cost of gas or reduce the rate at which new cars entered the market.

Also, the “ridiculous alarmism” over the migrations and positive emission loops is already playing out. It was 100F in parts of the Arctic circle earlier this month, and the permafrost fires from last year survived the winter. 100’s of millions will he starving by the end of this year due to crop failures (COVID will more than double that due to economic disruptions).

The IPCC has always been very conservative with their projections. So far, their predictions have been wildly optimistic.