>

If the quality of life is made untenable by extreme temperatures, you will understandably move with the full legal right (technically)  to do so.
"loss and damage fund" = transfer of (more) wealth upwards >

“How can you look somebody in the eye, with a straight face, and not accept the notion that there are damages, there are losses?” he asked. “We see them all around the world. You see them in heightened sea levels, we see them in fires, we see them in floods, in Pakistan and elsewhere. We see them in the higher intensity of storms.” >

Seems that we need to develop $ at risk density maps to make truly good comparisons.
How many of those events breach $1B simply because there is more stuff in the impacted areas versus decades ago when densities were decreased? >

He said as he stepped off his private jet and got into his SUV >

How does this change the fact that huge parts of the planet are becoming unlivable? >

Don't you know? The left has to be morally perfectly pure and even a relatively mild slight is grounds for banishment /s >

Poor nations contributed very little to atmospheric carbon and received fewer benefits from modern industry. Of course the richer and more polluting nations owe them damages from climate change.
America and China are 1a and 1b on the list of who should pay. >

Oil companies should pay. They have driven this disaster in order to maximize profits and hoard money off shore. Go after the villains. >

We do, but the there's an infestation of parasites on our economic and political systems.