I don't know how his parents handle it, if they have accepted it at all.
But even if that were true, who says you can’t drive trains in a climate catastrophe? There’s a whole movie on the topic. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowpiercer
However, I remain optimistic, yes there is climate change, yes it will have a range of effects on people depending on where they live. From the lengthening of the growing season and all the positive outcomes, through minor inconvenience, to crop failures/lack of water and death of the others. Sadly, some of the poorest regions on the planet will be hit the worst and some of the most wealthy will reap the benefits.
Without actual physical power over countries like China there is no stopping of climate change. The best we(democracies) can do is to retain as much power as possible to help as many people as possible during this time.
Imagine scenario 1 where a climate change is slowed down by 1C over next 20 years at the cost of entire deindustrialisation of Europe, and it's subsequent subjugation to Russian-Chinese partnership.
Then scenario 2 where we have 1C of extra warming now not in 20 years, but Europe remains free, wealthy and able to continue to help poorer countries, accept refugees etc. Which world is going to be a better one?
I think people will choose option 2.
But China is famously the big commodity supplier of the whole West. Why and how could the West (or just the US) shut all of that down even in the hypothetical of having complete control of China?
Nonsense: climate scientists have been making accurate predictions since the 1970s and, more importantly those have become more precise over time because their goal is to do scientific research and see where the results lead rather than starting from the precept “we can’t reduce profits for polluters” and working backwards. You can see the difference in how many different things deniers have latched onto over the years – each time we’re told that some minor gap completely disproves the entire field, and then when that’s debunked they move on to some other random point, very similar to creationists’ “god of the gaps” where it’s left with increasingly insignificant claims between multiple lines of robust argument and evidence.
And in fact, we’ll probably want train conductors if we’re going to improve public transportation to enable more density and electrified transport. That’s why Doomers are nearly as bad as the denialists: the unscientific vocal lack of hope means they’re not supporting the actual change we need. And sometimes they’ll shout down folks offering solutions.
Do you imagine a billion people moving from India to Siberia?
(Edit to add: that would be so epic that the entire Mahābhārata could be seen as it's prelude.)
Seek shelter during those hours, such as underground.
You move.
Climate change of the magnitude you are talking about does not happen overnight. That change happens over a few hundred years, not over a weekend.
Does construction, sports, or other outdoor activity stop during the summer? No. More might move to early in the morning or later at night, but last summer I regularly ran 5K twice a week when it was between 35-38ºC.
California is taking the bulk of the water we naturally have by river, and Saudi Arabia is taking a significant amount of our groundwater (by alfalfa farming), and we’ve not started wars with either.
On the other hand we have a lot of sun and we’re able to offset >100% of our cooling cost with solar energy (amortized over the year, but also at any point in time if our installer hadn’t undersized our inverter). None of that would have been possible 40 years ago, but buildings are being retrofit every day here.
All that to say, people will adapt. Some will migrate. Some area may become more habitable, some less.
The most likely adaptation is some form of eco-fascism.