There is no way there is a proper plan to deal with climate change, you have to be seriously naive to believe that. And the reason is simple: if you mention cutting back on ANYTHING to spoiled Western populations, they go mental.
Hyperbole much !!!, the fact that even with the measures we can take that ensure even your standard of living we would not be sure of when it will slow down, we would also hamper the 3rd world as we would need to mine a lot more rare metals. As we have not yet got the best use of them then it's a can kicking exercise that we need to take slowly.
Professor Bill McGuire
Ah explains the hyperbole:
Short answer, no.
Longer answer, there are a smattering of ideas that in unique circumstances weather, broadly defined, may influence the exact timing of earthquakes but would not change the frequency or severity of earthquakes. An example that pops up now and again is this paper (www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08042.html?foxtrotcallback=true) from a few years back that argued extreme low atmospheric pressure systems (i.e. big typhoons) might slightly 'unclamp' faults in Taiwan to allow small magnitude earthquakes to occur. They went a bit farther and suggested that this produced 'slow-slip' events as opposed to large more destructive single earthquakes (slow-slip events are a somewhat strange phenomena that occur along many subduction zones where the earthquake energy comparable to a relatively large magnitude earthquake is released gradually over the course of days to months in a HUGE amount of very small earthquakes or something more akin to creep, i.e. episodic tremor and slip events). In detail, people have argued over the exact mechanism, instead suggesting that rainfall may be more important (onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JB011807/abstract) in this case and in general our understanding of why slow-slip occurs is still pretty limited so in my mind this type of correlation is extremely tenuous to say the least. Similarly, in Taiwan and the Himalaya it's been argued that erosion from landslides caused by heavy rainfall, and the resulting stress change on faults, can trigger earthquakes (e.g. this NatGeo discussion of a talk, as far as I can tell this research was never published in a journal news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111215-rainfall-hurricanes-typhoons-earthquakes-science-earth/).
The important point for all of this is that these are all earthquake events that were already going to happen and were already likely going to happen in the way that they did, so this comes back to my first statement. These are triggering mechanisms so they might influence the exact timing of an earthquake (i.e. will this earthquake happen tomorrow or in a month) but the ultimate cause is still the nature of the faults they occur on (i.e. what size of rupture can they support, mechanical properties) and the tectonic forces they store (i.e. rates of plate motion, etc). These mechanisms (and they are still pretty controversial so we're already taking a little leap of faith in treating them as certainties here) only trigger events that are on the cusp of already happening. So, with that logic, to the extant that climate change increases the frequency of extreme precipitation events, one might expect a potential increase in the importance of these triggering mechanisms in already active tectonic environments like the ones above, but there is no reason to expect changes in either global frequency of events (i.e. the Gutenberg-Richer relationship won't change en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg%E2%80%93Richter_law ) or severity of events as these are dictated by the tectonic forces. Also, to head off any potential follow-up questions, it's important to realise that these triggers seem to be inconsistent, meaning that not all similar precipitation events in tectonically active areas cause similar earthquakes to happen (again, because it ultimately depends on the pre-existing state of the faults more than anything else) so these aren't useful for 'predicting' earthquakes in any sense.