5 ms·

I'm wondering if there are any estimates/simulations on which countries or geographical regions would be the least impacted (or perhaps even benefit) from globa

by folli 7y ago

I'm wondering if there are any estimates/simulations on which countries or geographical regions would be the least impacted (or perhaps even benefit) from global warming. It's very defeatist, but maybe it would make sense to consider emigration before everyone else does so.

JoeAltmaier 7y ago
Surviving rising water levels is trivial of course - just walk away from the beach. But its not about the weather changes per se; its about the global human conflict when food gets scarce and hungry people have guns. You have to survive that first.
- irrational 7y ago
  So maybe Americans are not so crazy for having so many guns? /s
  - rayiner 7y ago
    No sarcasm needed. What do you think will happen when fresh water resources get tight?
    - selimthegrim 7y ago
      What India is doing with the NRC in Assam is probably proactively violating international treaties on refugees, etc
  - JoeAltmaier 7y ago
    Euphemism for 'war machines'. I expect bombs will keep most of humanity from ever feeling hunger.
    - SiempreViernes 7y ago
      That seems unlikely given the economics of warfare, only a small subset has the resources to actually fund a long drawn out war. In the other extreme I guess a all out nuclear strike on population centres in China and India might have a chance to kill a slight majority of humanity, but I wouldn't bet on it. Conventional weapons offer no real effect here I think.
- Tepix 7y ago
  Food production will also suffer. And some areas will become uninhabitable. It could be a significant percentage of land mass eventually.
- folli 7y ago
  I assume that it has a lot to do with the availability of fresh water and temperatures that stay within a range that is still suitable to crop farming. That part should be feasible to predict. I agree however that the resulting global conflict will be impossible to predict.
- chaitanya 7y ago
  > Surviving rising water levels is trivial of course - just walk away from the beach. I don’t want to take away from your other point but this is not so trivial for the hundreds of millions living in low lying countries like Bangladesh.
  - Diederich 7y ago
    Right. Walk away from the beach: to inland places that are likely being impacted by increasingly extreme weather events.
namanyayg 7y ago
I'm in an underdeveloped country already, I'd pay for such a solution and then for the visa at the destination country. I fear I'll be beaten to the punch and my unborn kids will have to figure it out for themselves, though.
CalRobert 7y ago
Here's a map. It's wildly optimistic and simplistic. It doesn't illustrate the regions rendered uninhabitable by radioactive fallout. It also doesn't illustrate the massive, apocalyptic global conflict that preceded it. I wouldn't wait too long, because we've already seen a global trend towards making immigration more difficult. In short, head for high ground far from the equator. Maybe look for places with reasonably strong militaries as well. https://i.redd.it/en1yptpyoxzz.png https://i.redd.it/en1yptpyoxzz.png
nostrademons 7y ago
Here're some decent maps: https://www.berkeley.edu/news2/2010/06/climate-vulnerable.jpg https://www.berkeley.edu/news2/2010/06/climate-vulnerable.jp... https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/4-enviro-econ-impact-europe.png https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/4-enviro-econ-impa... https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-impact-of-climate-change/trend09-1m-soer2010-eps/image_large https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-im... tl;dv: - Canada, Russia, and Northeast Africa (Egypt/Libya) actually see positive impacts. For Canada and Russia global warming could be a huge boon, opening up large areas of uninhabitable permafrost to settlement and bringing in trade through arctic ocean sea routes. - The US does pretty well, but with large regional variations. The Pacific Northwest and Northeast become more desirable, with fewer rainy days. NorCal does okay but faces increased forest fires. The Southwest (LA/Vegas/Phoenix) faces water shortages. The Southeast becomes a miserable place to live. - Europe (particularly Southern Europe) is in trouble. Crop yields and rainfall drop in the South; the North is vulnerable to changes in the gulf stream. - Africa, India, Australia, and island nations get fucked. So basically, the worst effects fall on the global poor, while major geopolitical powers see mostly neutral (U.S, China) or positive (Russia) effects. Within those neutral countries, the benefits fall largely on rich heavily-populated areas, while the downsides fall on marginalized rural poor. No wonder we haven't seen much movement on fixing climate change. Canada is a big surprise winner that could catapult it to geopolitical prominence. Right now it's the U.S's friendly northern neighbor; in 2100 it could rival the U.S. in power.

by folli 7y ago

JoeAltmaier 7y ago

Surviving rising water levels is trivial of course - just walk away from the beach. But its not about the weather changes per se; its about the global human conflict when food gets scarce and hungry people have guns. You have to survive that first.

irrational 7y ago
So maybe Americans are not so crazy for having so many guns? /s
- rayiner 7y ago
  No sarcasm needed. What do you think will happen when fresh water resources get tight?
  - selimthegrim 7y ago
    What India is doing with the NRC in Assam is probably proactively violating international treaties on refugees, etc
- JoeAltmaier 7y ago
  Euphemism for 'war machines'. I expect bombs will keep most of humanity from ever feeling hunger.
  - SiempreViernes 7y ago
    That seems unlikely given the economics of warfare, only a small subset has the resources to actually fund a long drawn out war. In the other extreme I guess a all out nuclear strike on population centres in China and India might have a chance to kill a slight majority of humanity, but I wouldn't bet on it. Conventional weapons offer no real effect here I think.
Tepix 7y ago
Food production will also suffer. And some areas will become uninhabitable. It could be a significant percentage of land mass eventually.
folli 7y ago
I assume that it has a lot to do with the availability of fresh water and temperatures that stay within a range that is still suitable to crop farming. That part should be feasible to predict. I agree however that the resulting global conflict will be impossible to predict.
chaitanya 7y ago
> Surviving rising water levels is trivial of course - just walk away from the beach. I don’t want to take away from your other point but this is not so trivial for the hundreds of millions living in low lying countries like Bangladesh.
- Diederich 7y ago
  Right. Walk away from the beach: to inland places that are likely being impacted by increasingly extreme weather events.

namanyayg 7y ago

I'm in an underdeveloped country already, I'd pay for such a solution and then for the visa at the destination country. I fear I'll be beaten to the punch and my unborn kids will have to figure it out for themselves, though.

CalRobert 7y ago

Here's a map. It's wildly optimistic and simplistic. It doesn't illustrate the regions rendered uninhabitable by radioactive fallout. It also doesn't illustrate the massive, apocalyptic global conflict that preceded it. I wouldn't wait too long, because we've already seen a global trend towards making immigration more difficult. In short, head for high ground far from the equator. Maybe look for places with reasonably strong militaries as well. https://i.redd.it/en1yptpyoxzz.png https://i.redd.it/en1yptpyoxzz.png

nostrademons 7y ago

Here're some decent maps: https://www.berkeley.edu/news2/2010/06/climate-vulnerable.jpg https://www.berkeley.edu/news2/2010/06/climate-vulnerable.jp... https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/4-enviro-econ-impact-europe.png https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/4-enviro-econ-impa... https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-impact-of-climate-change/trend09-1m-soer2010-eps/image_large https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/projected-im... tl;dv: - Canada, Russia, and Northeast Africa (Egypt/Libya) actually see positive impacts. For Canada and Russia global warming could be a huge boon, opening up large areas of uninhabitable permafrost to settlement and bringing in trade through arctic ocean sea routes. - The US does pretty well, but with large regional variations. The Pacific Northwest and Northeast become more desirable, with fewer rainy days. NorCal does okay but faces increased forest fires. The Southwest (LA/Vegas/Phoenix) faces water shortages. The Southeast becomes a miserable place to live. - Europe (particularly Southern Europe) is in trouble. Crop yields and rainfall drop in the South; the North is vulnerable to changes in the gulf stream. - Africa, India, Australia, and island nations get fucked. So basically, the worst effects fall on the global poor, while major geopolitical powers see mostly neutral (U.S, China) or positive (Russia) effects. Within those neutral countries, the benefits fall largely on rich heavily-populated areas, while the downsides fall on marginalized rural poor. No wonder we haven't seen much movement on fixing climate change. Canada is a big surprise winner that could catapult it to geopolitical prominence. Right now it's the U.S's friendly northern neighbor; in 2100 it could rival the U.S. in power.