I hate to be the bearer of bad hot takes, but the burdens falling disproportionately on the poor is not a reason to avoid catastrophic global collapse.

Even though it's unfair, if the choice is "the burdens fall on the poor" and "the burdens fall on everyone (including the poor, who will be hit harder because they have fewer resources in reserve to survive unplanned catastrophe)", the first option is better.

(... it's also a false forced choice; there are other options. But the question of poverty runs somewhat separate to the question of saving humanity from climate change).