The owners of the land, silly. That would mainly be Big Agriculture. Giant conglomerates that often also own the associated food processing industry.
Just because they are corporations doesn't mean it isn't real money. They've shelled out $$ for land that is now worthless, or at least worth a lot less than they paid for it. It doesn't matter at all who's money it is / was, it's still real money. Those costs are going to get passed on in some way, shape or form to the end users (us).
You mean like irrigation? Pave a road or two? We are constantly developing that sort of infrastructure already. No new expenses next year? Great.
I mean a LOT of infrastructure, not just a road or two and a bit of irrigation piping.
I mean things like:
Proper irrigation infrastructure, probably where none existed before. Dams, pipes / canals / pumps etc
Proper access and distribution infrastructure.
Setting up the farms in the first place. Buildings, fields, fencing, etc etc etc
Maybe you have to drain the land. Isn't half of Canada going to turn into one giant bog once all the permafrost melts?
And it mean *lots* of it.
That's a lot of $$$$. That's also lots of time required. It's highly likely we don't have that much time to work up the new infrastructure.
Also, who said the "new land" will be any where near as productive as the old land, or that there will be enough of it.
Like New York? Miami? The earth could burn up and dry out and still people would live in those places, because cities already are an artificial environment. Even rising oceans wont make cities go away. There might be some rough patches with some flooding, but even New Orleans is still on the coast, below sea level, and heavily populated. Cities just arent going anywhere.
Those cities maybe, but others will have problems. Many cities already face serious infrastructure issues (like enough suitable potable water supplies)
There's a hell of a lot of value / sunk costs in a city of any size. Hell in my city they are talking about building a new convention / entertainment centre. It will hold maybe 7,000 people. They're talking $100,000,000. That's just one dodgy building.
I don't know what homes go for where you live, but around here you are talking $400,000 - $500,000 each.
Don't forget the basic infrastructure to go with all that (water, roads, sanitation, electricity, gas, etc)
Now multiply that out by an entire city, then a number of cities. And remember, you aren't going to be able to sell your old real estate for anything much. So this is all cash you have to find from somewhere.
Most of the world already can't feed itself, and yet you are here telling us that one of the dire consequences of climate change is that most of the world wont be able to feed itself? You are describing the present, not the future.
This is an already solved problem, and proof of that solution are all the metropolises that we have erected. We wont have to follow the herds because we don't have to follow the herds. If Americans can pay China to produce gadgets for them, then the "distance problem" obviously has become a trivial afterthought. Stop pretending that its a problem, OK? Its intellectually dishonest at best.. blatantly willful ignorance at worst.
You're missing the point. The problem is about changing the current "haves" into the new "have nots". That's not going to go down too well.
As I said before the real issues will be around the costs of moving / changing. They are going to be massive. Of course we can engineer solutions to individual issues. It's just going to cost us. The other even bigger thing is the resulting conflicts that will arise from the changes. That is going to be one of the "engineering solutions". Take if from whoever has it now.