The planet won’t be destroyed though. Some areas will just become less habitable for humans. And that can be off-set with money (for example by paying for air conditioning). So your premise is faulty.
You’re not considering larger problems like food supply, displaced peoples, and infrastructure damage. Those things will effect everyone. Sure, with money you can initially buy security, food, and comfort but only to an extent. There’s a breaking point where money stops mattering anymore.
I think it’s fair to equate inhabitable with destroyed from a human perspective, especially considering that your assertion that it won’t be complete is itself not universally agreed upon.
The planet won’t be destroyed though. Some areas will just become less habitable for humans. And that can be off-set with money (for example by paying for air conditioning). So your premise is faulty.
You’re not considering larger problems like food supply, displaced peoples, and infrastructure damage. Those things will effect everyone. Sure, with money you can initially buy security, food, and comfort but only to an extent. There’s a breaking point where money stops mattering anymore.
Air conditioning alone will not hold off the water from the coast metropolis, where something like 50% of the world population will have to relocate.
I think it’s fair to equate inhabitable with destroyed from a human perspective, especially considering that your assertion that it won’t be complete is itself not universally agreed upon.