Just curious -
Which will be more disruptive to human life on planet Earth:

1) transitioning from a fossil fuel (which we can all agree will run out at some point) economy to something else (which would have the added benefit of reducing various forms of polution related to extraction, processing, transportation and burning of fossil fuels), or
2) moving the populations of Bangladesh, Tuvalu, Venice, the entire Sahel, possibly the southwestern US, Nunavut, many many coastal regions, et. etc. to other places - where there are already other people living?

Which is more likely to provoke conflict, promote disease and death in refugee camps and just generally F with humanity?

Serious question.