Gotcha. Yes, that is probably in large part why no one in power was willing to take the needed action a decade ago (combined is a tragedy of the commons problem with individual country's incentives to reduce carbon emissions). Still, I'm not entirely confident life will actually be all the comfortable for the american and global elites in coming decades.
While wealth certainly has an insulating effect from the direct consequences of increases in food prices, the direct consequences can get very messy for people in power. In 2010, we had major droughts in Russia, the Ukraine, Argentina, and China at the same time excessive rain damaged crops in Canada, Australia, and Brazil. Prices of staple foods doubled around the world, and in some of the most food insecure parts of the world, (the middle east and africa) people took to the streets, rioted, and ultimately the regimes in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya were overthrown, and a civil war in Syria kicked off that is still going on today.
Now the average Egyptian was already spending 40% of their income on food so a 2x increase in the cost of wheat immediately put them in an untenable position. The average american is spending about 13% of their post-tax income on food, and a lot of what we call "food" spending is actually spent on paying for restaurant service rather than food itself. So while it took a 2x spike to bring down regimes in the middle east, it might take a 5x or 10x or even 20x increase food prices before we'd react the same way.
But once people cannot feed themselves or feed their children, sooner or later you get a French Revolution. And that not a good outcome for the people in power, even if they don't miss a lot of meals right up until the guillotines come out.