IPCC head Dr R K Pachauri mentions floating cities for imagined CO2 refugees

I was very intrigued to see a beautiful illustration of an "offshore ecopolis" conceptualized by Belgian architect Vincent Callebaut. He is thinking of a floating ecopolis for climate refugees which would be an amphibious city designed to accommodate up to 50,000 inhabitants. This is indeed a novel idea and perhaps reflects the sensitivity to a possible crisis, but can we not do enough to see that we prevent a large scale movement of climate refugees in the future? To ensure this the world would have to bring about "deep cuts" in emissions of greenhouse gases as clearly identified in the Bali roadmap.
...
...The beauty of these desirable changes lies in the fact that they would produce a huge range of so called co-benefits which if anything will enhance the welfare of human society such as through higher energy security, lower levels of pollution at the local level, stable agricultural yields and additional employment. I wonder why we are dragging our feet in the face of such overwhelming logic.

1. If sea levels did rise 12 inches in a few decades, why not move a foot uphill rather than construct floating cities?

2. If small amounts of CO2 may kill us all, why do we need to stress any alleged co-benefits of buying into the IPCC's scam?