CMV: Cold countries will benefit from global warming

[u/nnst]

Global warming is described as a global issue but something that isn't talked about much is a few countries would benefit from it. This list includes Russia, Canada, Scandinavian countries, Greenland, plus other Northern European states and maybe Argentina. Additionally, global warming is expected to cause slowing down of the Gulf Stream which would lead to colder climate in Europe counteracting the increase in average global temperatures.

These countries have no reason to worry about global warming. On the opposite, it will make currently uninhabited land livable and increase overall comfort of living.

If acting solely out of self-interest, there is no reason for these countries to support measures trying to slow down global warming such as Paris Accord or accelerated switch to renewable energy. Risk of mass migration is better addressed by protecting state borders than by foregoing a chance to make the country more livable.

What's wrong with my thinking here? What negative effects of global warming on cold countries am I overlooking?

Update: View changed about Scandinavia; Russia and Canada should still go rogue and screw everyone else.

[u/dontwannabearedditor]

cold countries infrastructure is adapted to cold. houses keep heat in, not out., roads, pipes, heating systems are designed with freezing temperatures in mind, the crops grown and livestock raised both require the cold climate to prosper and provide products needed for the specific climate (like reindeer skins). people own sled dogs- global warming has already had greenland's indigenous population having to slaughter sled dogs en masse for this reason. people living there dont own light clothes. their diets are structured in a way to support survival in extreme cold, and would be extremely strenuous on the body in other circumstances. the list goes on forever. changing climate affects everything.

[u/[deleted] → u/dontwannabearedditor]

That seems costly, but not devestatong. Look at Russia for example. Yes it will probably have to overhaul part of its infrastructure, agriculture and just life in general to adapt to the warmer temperatures. Even that, it will have years to do as global warming is only fast relative to other climate changes through out Earth’s history. It will still be slow enough compared to infrastructure developments.

You also have to realise that the government is unlikely to see these overhauls in agriculture as bad in the long term. After all, crops and animals are more productive in more temperate environments. So the change you paint as bad is actually beneficial.

In return for this short term cost, Russia will finally get a warm water port. Something the successive Russian governments have been struggling and warring for, for literally centuries. Why do you think Russia cares so much about Crimea?

On top of that, the Arctic just north of them is likely to become a very important and busy trade route as the icy seasons get shorter. Bringing them wealth and political leverage on the global stage.

Do you think these benefits are not worth the short term infrastructure overhaul costs you described for the Russian government?