Few notes: climate change is a fact we all can observe, there is no point in talking about climate models, who tend to change far faster than climate and have many limits, no point in talking about mean temperature most people simply do not understand AND for good reasons.

The point is ENDING the narrative of "reversing" climate change because even if, and I doubt, only (not also) an outcome of anthropic activities, results could potentially be seen after a century or more and in that timeframe we will be all dead. The point is simply telling that we need to adapt QUICKLY meaning be ready for mass relocations, so wars, displaced productions activities in particular agricultural, long complex supply chain malfunctioning and regular disruptions and so on.

That is commonly named "resilience" but is narrate as an ancillary part of the debate not the main point. This imply we need to build new homes, for various reasons ranging from energy needs to mere relocation needs because actual ones are in a too frequently flooded are, a zone where having enough rainwater it's more and more an issue, where melting permafrost generate too much ground infra disruption and so on. Since we do not REALLY know how things will evolve, it's not only climate but also human wars who will generate much different human scenarios, we should be distributed for resilience and have as much as slack we can for anything (energy, food, appliances, ...).

All the above mean that's about time to drop the smart city push, a nazi-like scenario, modern Fordlandia equally distopic and untenable in a changing world to state a simple thing: we can do the new deal, but the new deal is incompatible with finance capitalism. We must came back to a spread vivid economy where anyone own a bit. That's why we see especially in the west a very hard breaks apply on the new deal. That's why we see more and more neo-malthussian ideas spreading.

A path to resilience is:

- redundancy

- as much as possible (not much, but something is possible) autonomy

- diversity

- simple infrastructure (because they are fast to change/repair/rebuild and cheap)

A simple example: a spread area of single family homes get flooded or hit by an earthquake, well, being nearly all light buildings spread enough the distressed people are not so much to makes rescue operations impossible, posing temporary housing modules and local p.v. (eventually recovery parts of the one already in place) it's doable, all ops can be done normally by air and involve things light/small enough to be easy spread by air. A counter example a dense city, rescuing is damn hard because there is no room to move, too many people to rescue in a single area, NOTHING made to be distributed so most of the infra broken beyond quick restore ability. Much higher restoring costs and much more time needed. It's a very simple example, but good enough to understand. Another simple one: a small "cube" (1000l clean water tank) in line with the aqueduct, fill by a simple float faucet, pushing water to the home with a small pump + a small pressurized tank with the "bubble" to keep the pressure constant and some small potatoes stuff (a clapet valve, a pressostat etc) cost at current hyper inflated prices some 200€, give few days of water autonomy to a home. It's simple tech that allow for comfort during uncomfortable situations and allow calmer and cheaper response.