If the temperature drop becomes inevitable, I wonder if it'd be worthwhile to just colonize Antarctica to make up for the lost landmass elsewhere. Maybe it's time to have more than scientists living there.
>> These staff residences are important for attracting employees, as the waiting time for a municipal rental property in Nuuk is between 10-12 years for a private individual.
edit: my bad. didn't realize you were asking about greenland, I don't want to act like "no trees" is the cause of their housing crisis, I have no idea
[0]https://ign.ku.dk/english/about/arboreta/arboretum-greenland...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinngua_Valley
Lumber is imported. Mostly from Denmark, if I'm reading this chart correctly:
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/GRL/Yea...
Suggesting that people who are both biologically and culturally adapted to hot, equatorial climates migrate to Antarctica as a primary solution to this displacement strikes me as absurd.
Having said that, I think colonizing Antarctica will certainly be a thing, but mostly for resource extraction, not for habitation of tens of millions of displaced poor people.
You could argue that we have the technology to overcome these biologically hurdles, and we do, but we're talking about millions of poor refugees who would have nothing if forced to abandon their land. It's unlikely that western good will would fund them indefinitely.