> Canada, Russia seem to be the big winners of climate change.

Less "big winner" and more "least losers". Very much a "I'd rather be a king in hell than a beggar in heaven" kind of things.

Climate change will alter what latitudes crops can be grown in, but between the more erratic climate patterns (which make it harder to grow crops at all) and the absence of any built-up quality soil high up, it will mostly lead agricultural output to drop precipitously.

Heavy subsidence from melting permafrost and cratering from methane explosion won't help either.

And then, obviously, modern industrial agriculture is not just a bloke going out on a field and throwing a few seeds they found in their pantry or in a rock crack, there's an entire chain of supplies and knowledge undergirding it.

> China seem to be the big winners of climate change.

Have you ever looked what altitude China's major population and agriculture centers are? The north china plain is barely 50m above sea level at its highest point.

Now that doesn't mean it can't be leveraged e.g. the CCP may well be planning to use this in order to, say, declare emergencies, draft everyone and prosecute massive expansion wars, but I wouldn't say "China" in the sense of its people would be a big winner of that.

No, there will be no winners at all.

"Winners of climate change" is pure propaganda talk and if you read basic literature about what 2 or 4 degrees more even means you will have a better understanding for that and it will enable you to dismantle that fabricated idea.

China, any small gains in crops would be vastly outweighed by coastal devastation. The Chinese population is mostly coastal, with the better part of a billion people on the coast. Sea level rise will be a massive challenge, salt water intrusion to water supplies, flooding is already devastating in China as well. Then you look at Shanghai, second only to Miami in it's potential to be underwater.

There will be no winners of climate change.

China? They are having the worst floods and rains in a 1.000 year. I think the jury is still out there if they are going to be one of the worst affected by climate change.

Siberia has just had the largest forest fires in recorded history anywhere on earth. Permafrost is meling causing sinkholes and collapse of building as the earth shifts. Swaths of forest are turning into swamos and releasing massive amount of CO2 in the process

Overall, perhaps, but on the local level it's causing a lot of problems.

The region I grew up in, in eastern Ontario, is an area with fairly thin soil. Fortunately, summer rains were generally frequent and mild- light rain all day a few days per week, and sunny and warm otherwise. This balanced out the thin soil, and made it work well for certain crops, corn especially.

The last 15 years have seen a huge shift to dry weather interspersed with dramatically heavy rain. Heavy rain sounds good, but it's too fast- the water doesn't seep deeply into the soil, doesn't let the crops really get a good drink. It runs off, often taking nutrients with it straight into rivers.

My parents are saying their farmer friends, staunch conservatives who used to believe climate change was a political stance, are suddenly getting more and more worried.