I hear so much about the disaster of climate change but won’t a few places improve? Where?

Answer 1

With any change, there are winners and losers.

The problem with global climate change is that if it happens rapidly, as it seems to be doing, people, society, and natural systems may not have time to adapt.

For example, suppose wheat will now grow farther north in America, but not where it used to farther south. Suppose the areas in the northern area are not fertile enough or are already full of cities and towns. Where do you now grow the wheat?

Or the Great Lakes region could end up with more rain, which could be good, but it also gets warmer, so more water evaporates and the level of the lakes go down and now shipping on the lakes costs millions a year more because of lower water levels.

You may see long-term benefits in some areas, but in the short-term things may end up very chaotic globally and locally.

It's very hard to work out where any absolute benefits might lie, and with everything so interconnected, the price of rice in China will assuredly end up impacting the price of your pair of sneakers.

See the links below for some interesting background information applicable to your question.

Answer 2

it probably won't improve at all think about this if the northern caps melt it will flood so the cold climate aren't improved if hot places near the equator are hotter than it gets too hot to grow anything and have living conditions for people

Answer 3

Greenland would be better off, as would many far northern locations that are now too cold for agriculture. That would be better for people but not the natural animal populations, like polar bears or seals or whatever.