Global warming is going to 'disproportionately impact the most vulnerable' even more. (Is there anything at all that won't? People with fewer resources have fewer options in dealing with new challenges, this seems like a fundamental fact.)
Yes. Decline in stock prices or real estate for example.
> People with fewer resources have fewer options in dealing with new challenges, this seems like a fundamental fact.
Yes, that's almost true by definition.
Even in my examples, in general the people who start out rich will still be better off after a stock market crash than the people who started out poor.
Look on the bright side though: by symmetry any disaster averted or condition improved also helps the vulnerable more.
True that rich people (if they're not being stupid with their money) will be better positioned to buy cheap stocks after a crash and will multiply their fortunes in the long run.
I like your bright side.
Shouldn't make too much of a difference? The total number of houses and households stays the same after the sale. Basically, you are right, for every such transaction you describe, one rental unit is taken off the rental market, but also one household exits the rental market, too.
Brazil relies on hydroelectricity for 65% of its electricity, and the Brazilian government plans to expand the share of biomass and wind energy (currently 6%) as alternatives.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil
There was no point other than to identify the error in your proposition.
For new builds a heat pump + solar is the smart choice - they cost more upfront but the lower costs win in the long term (after 15 years or so, without grants). The problem is older properties don't have the same level of insulation as new builds, so even if there are grants for replacing the equipment it's going to be a long time until it pays off. It depends how big the grants are though, if a government is serious about going green then it's a worthwhile investment.