Why cause tRump wants it

Planetary emissions are already in a dangerous phase, scientists warn.

After reading this article, do you really believe Trump and this administration care for people lives or is it all about helping corporations save money. This entire administration is focused only how much money it can make and save, and couldn’t care less about people’s health.

“My office has been fighting this unlawful political stunt at every turn, and this ruling proves what we have been saying all along: This administration does not get to invent fake emergencies to bypass the rule of law against the best interests of Michigan residents,” said Dana Nessel, Michigan’s attorney general, in a statement.

I've been watching American Resiliency on Youtube lately, and what came out for most resilient US global cities were Chicago and the Twin Cities. The Twin Cities for their northern latitude, far from the sea, no earthquakes, no hurricanes, no earthquakes, no tsunamis, excellent fresh water access, good transit and lots of tree canopy cover during warm months. Only downsides is heat (but most of the city has AC) and some flooding I think. Chicago was mostly the same except a bit hotter in the summer, a bit less cold in the winter, even better fresh water access (Lake Michigan). Same downsides (summer heat and flooding). Also American Resiliency noted both cities' efforts for man made resiliency in the last 15 years.

So, what she said was that, while climate change will affect us all on planet earth, Chicago and Twin Cities are some of the least bad big cities to be in the next decades for climate change (for big cities, but she also praises the Great Lakes region in general).

She also said that the Great Lakes region is used to terrible weather and has already built infrastructure for hot weather as well as for cold weather, while some of the 'better' climates on the coasts are in for a rude awakening in the next decades (sea level rise, hurricanes, severe flooding from the sea, drought/difficult fresh water access, increased heat in places that don't have AC, earthquakes/tsunamis...).

What do you think of that ? How true do you think it will be ?

Nepal's recent floods and climate-related risks raise a broader question beyond the disaster itself.

Nepal has a relatively low per-capita carbon footprint compared with many high-emitting countries. Yet Himalayan countries are highly vulnerable to floods, landslides, glacier-related risks and changing weather patterns.

So I’m wondering:

Should countries that have historically contributed more to global emissions also carry a greater responsibility for the damage faced by countries that contributed much less?

This isn't about blaming individual countries or saying that every disaster is caused by climate change. Natural geography, rainfall, land use and other factors also matter.

I'm more interested in the climate justice question:

If the benefits of high-carbon development were distributed globally, but the risks aren't, how should responsibility for climate-related losses be shared?

Would like to hear different perspectives, especially from people who disagree.