19 ms·
Exceeding 1.5°C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points
- collyw 4y ago
- BiteCode_dev 4y agoBeing stabbed with a knife could kill you. Could.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- micromacrofoot 4y agoworst case if we try to address the problem and it doesn’t come to fruition is that we improve the environment around us worst case if we don’t address the problem and it does come to fruition is mass famine
- coffeeblack 4y agoNo, worst case is that “climate change” is used as an excuse to destroy democracy and rule of law “to save the world”, because radicalised people attack anybody who even sounds like they may have any doubt. It wouldn’t be the first time a true and just cause was abused for that end.
- bowsamic 4y agoWhat makes you think that's the worst case outcome of climate change?
- 988747 4y agoBecause that's the one that actually can happen, unlike apocalyptic visions of "Earth burning", or "famine"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ben_w 4y agoYou think famines are unlikely? They've been the irregular default prior to the modern age; I think it will require active efforts to prevent them no matter what happens with the climate.
- 988747 4y agoClimate change might actually increase amount of arable land, by millions of acres, in higher latitudes: Sweden, Finland, Greenland, Canada, etc. It will also increase total rainfall. https://phys.org/news/2018-05-climate-arable.html https://phys.org/news/2018-05-climate-arable.html Yes, it won't be seamless, but we can adjust to new conditions.
- marketneutral 4y ago"I'd rather watch the Earth burn than let 'wokeness' ruin the ideals of free market capitalism!"
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jandrese 4y agoPlease cite any instances where serious climate change activists threatened democracy or the rule of law or even discussed it. It would be completely counterproductive. One of the biggest problems with Climate Change is that it requires mass collective action, and that requires a stable and rational government or organize. Were climate change activists to promote anarchy it would be impossible for them to achieve their goals.
- 988747 4y agoThey do not promote anarchy, they promote totalitarian rule. Put all those 'climate change deniers' in prison, force them to eat bugs instead of meat, deny them any human rights, that kind of thing.
- jandrese 4y agoSo when you say a "threat to rule of law" you mean too much law? That seems confusingly worded.
- coffeeblack 4y agoOnce people are sufficiently radicalised, laws are not required anymore to put an “enemy” in prison (or worse). For most young Westerners who have never known anything but rule of law, that’s probably difficult to imagine.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoliterally no one with power has seriously proposed anything like this — quite the opposite in fact, the previous US president suggested that windmills cause cancer
- specialist 4y agoForgive me for interrupting your attempts to refute the "Liberal Fascism" trolling... One scenario I've heard, and has me a bit worried, is climate crisis begets a right wing reactionary environmentalism. Basically all the same nativist, anti-immigration, isolationist, anti-trade, yadda yadda, but with an "environmental" justification. So instead of mitigating or undoing the damage, the reactionaries would be energized by protecting what we have from "the other". Not too hard to imagine a crackdown, if scarcity leads to hunger leads to unrest.
- micromacrofoot 4y agoIf ecofascism triumphs over the current surge of ethnonationalism I'll still take that as a win. Doesn't seem likely though given current events and the totality of human history though.
- coffeeblack 4y agoCould you imagine that their might be a third alternative?
- micromacrofoot 4y agoOh of course, I don't think either of those scenarios will actually come to fruition.
- coffeeblack 4y ago*there
- HardlyCurious 4y agoThis isnt completely true. The biggest greenhouse gas CO2 is not a pollutant in any conventional sense. The gas is actually pumped into greenhouses to help plants grow faster, and helps plants grow in more arid environments, and reduces water consumption by plants. So efforts to reduce CO2 might not bear environmental benefits beyond fighting global warming.
- jandrese 4y agoIt's pumped into greenhouses because they have to be sealed to prevent heat from escaping. In nature plants aren't CO2 limited, typically they are either nutrient, light, or usually water limited; and the warming planet is exacerbating water distribution issues. Increasing CO2 does little to increase plant growth because the bottleneck is elsewhere.
- HardlyCurious 4y agoPlants lose less water to the environment when CO2 concentrations are higher because they don't have to open their pores as much to effectively breath. That is why CO2 helps plants grow in more arid environments. And CO2 is definitely not pumped into greenhouses to help them stay warm. CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, and the tens of vertical feet in a greenhouse couldn't possibly trap any measurable amount of heat from heightened CO2 concentrations. The glass of a greenhouse is responsible for the 'greenhouse' effect, not CO2.
- jandrese 4y agoHeat lost due to convection. Let in cold air and the greenhouse cools off.
- HardlyCurious 4y agoJust to be sure I understand your point. Are you saying they CO2 in as an alternative to having the greenhouse ventilate to the atmosphere? I guess the reason being that the plants would convert all the CO2 to O2 in the greenhouse and then suffocate without the vent or pumped CO2. Is that the most economical way to keep the greenhouse warm enough? There are heat exchangers which are passive devices you can attached to an intake and exhaust to reclaim heat.
- coffeeblack 4y agoNo point. People have completely lost any ability of nuanced thinking on this topic. Any doubt is immediately attacked.
- Bakary 4y agoNot exactly. Contributions that imply or explicitly mention martyrdom are met with suspicion, because they also imply unproductive flamewars are soon to follow.
- lwouis 4y agoWe are trying to foster content-rich conversations on this forum. If you have nothing much to contribute, better abstain.
- raydiatian 4y ago
- digdugdirk 4y agoOut of curiosity, how is this paper any different from the multitude of already known catastrophic outcomes from exceeding the 1.5deg temperature target?
- dagw 4y agoIt appears to be a reassessment of many papers on the topic published since 2008, trying to identify which of the proposed 'catastrophic' tipping points presented in those papers are most likely to occur specifically in the 1.5-2 degree range (as opposed to the 2+ degree point, which people also look at)
- micromacrofoot 4y ago> We carry out the first comprehensive reassessment of all suggested tipping elements, their CTPs, and the timescales and impacts of tipping. We also highlight steps to further improve understanding of CTPs, including an expert elicitation, a model intercomparison project, and early warning systems leveraging deep learning and remotely sensed data.
- HardlyCurious 4y agoI think the real answer is that doomsday studies get clicks and the capitalist engine is at work, and being worked by scientists for attention.
- kaon123 4y agoScary. This past year I went from seeing Climate Change as a "challenge to be overcome" to something that is simply happening during my lifetime. I suddenly realised that the truth is, in 20 years time 30+ degrees Summer Days will be completely normal in the Netherlands. I was jokingly asking myself when Switzerland will introduce the Siesta. I my attitudes went from Denial to Activism to Acceptance. Interesting how the mind works. Anybody else experiencing an attitude change?
- CalRobert 4y agoMy wife and I are very conflicted about moving to Utrecht because we very much want to live in a bike-friendly city where our kids can be independent (where we are now, Ireland, is horrible for this) but we also want somewhere that isn't too hot in 30 years. The Nordics might manage to have both?
- LunaSea 4y agoI would imagine that the rising ocean levels would be more concerning
- Tade0 4y ago> where our kids can be independent (where we are now, Ireland, is horrible for this) Could you elaborate?
- ryukafalz 4y agoHaving not been to Ireland but relating to this a lot in the US, my guess is it’s about biking not generally being safe. Kids can’t drive, but in the US at least we’ve built a ton of places where you basically have to drive to get around, so parents end up shuttling their kids around to wherever they want to go.
- Tade0 4y agoI've looked at a few random points in Irish cities and they don't seem to be any different than your typical European urban landscape. There are narrow streets, low-speed zones, even bike paths. Where's the horrible part?
- bambataa 4y agoRecent research argued that the loss of the Greenland ice sheet is now inevitable: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/29/major-sea-level-rise-caused-by-melting-of-greenland-ice-cap-is-now-inevitable-27cm-climate https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/29/major-se... Given the lag in the climate, isn’t 1.5C warming more or less unavoidable now? We would need extremely steep emissions reductions that aren’t happening. I enjoyed ‘Under a Green Sky’, which combines a brief history of palaeontology (and amusing academic point settling) with the prediction that warming will eventually cause huge releases of hydrogen sulphide. We are perhaps entering a negative feedback loop where disruption makes countries less keen to work together on emissions reductions as metaphorical bridges get pulled up (is Russia going to bother even pretending to care any more?).
- selimthegrim 4y agoI don’t know why, but the author’s writing style in Under a Green Sky irritated me so much I couldn’t get past the first few pages. Maybe it changes if I stick it out.
- bambataa 4y agoI think I know what you mean. He has quite an arrogant streak and is amusingly dismissive of large swathes of people (“the Basques are so dour!”). It’s worth persevering with, imo.
- saalweachter 4y agoSo historically in the climate modeling world, +6-8 degrees was considered the "we're all screwed" tipping point; this has led to recent optimism where it now looks like we'll probably level out at +2-3.5 degrees, and only some of us are screwed. The major tipping points that are estimated at 1.5 degrees are Greenland, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and coral reefs dying off. The former two have an associated sea level rise of about 3.5-4.5 meters all together. So I think this article isn't changing the "some of us are screwed" narrative substantially; it's more interesting because it pulls out all of the major forecast disasters and gives estimates of when (temperature wise) they'll happen.
- MikeCapone 4y agoAnd we're shutting down nuclear power plants? How about we do what France did in the 70s-80s and solve this problem once and for all.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoYou realise there's more to GHG than just electricity generation, right? I mean it's a big, low hanging fruit because renewables are so cheap now, but even after getting that done we have transport and agriculture and land use chemical feedstocks and old leaking mines and wells and on and on. Plenty to do.
- bluGill 4y agoThough if you take care of car based transport (replace with EVs and/or electric trains), and electric you have done the vast majority. The rest of just a long trail of small things that don't really add up to much together.
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoThats only about a third of emissions: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis...
- bluGill 4y agoi stand corrected. though with we make electric cheap enough most of the others are easy to switch, and that is already happening.
- H_Pylori 4y ago
- MikeCapone 4y agoThat's why we're also electrifying transportation, should push for heat pumps in buildings, etc, but yeah, there's a lot to do. Not dealing with electricity doesn't help the rest, though.
- rr888 4y agoI wonder how long it'll be before population starts moving. Traditionally Southern Europe, Southern USA had the best climate, now they seem to be places to avoid.
- c2h5oh 4y agoMore worrying: Among the areas expected to be the most affected by global warming are large parts of China, India and Pakistan. 1.5C on average might be 5-6C there, which is enough to make large, densely populated areas unlivable (as in you will die without AC). 2+ billion people living there having to move elsewhere is nothing we've seen before, the only direction they can really move is north, into Russia. All countries mentioned have nuclear weapons.
- gspetr 4y ago>1.5C on average might be 5-6C there, which is enough to make large, densely populated areas unlivable (as in you will die without AC). Saudi Arabia's capital, Riyadh has this forecast for next Tuesday: 44C(110F). And that temp is there most of the summer. "Saudi population has grown rapidly since 1950 when it was estimated to be 3 million, and for many years had one of the highest population growth rates in the world at around 3 per cent a year."
- hackerlight 4y agoThe cycle of events: - Conservatives in wealthy, cold countries refuse to stop polluting. - Pakistan becomes uninhabitable. - Conservatives in wealthy, cold countries pull up the draw bridge and refuse to let in migrants. - People in Pakistan die. - Conservatives in wealthy, cold countries blame the people in Pakistan. This isn't an intentionally politically charged post made with animus. It's just factually outlining what's currently going on and a plausible sequence of events from here.
- rr888 4y agoI understand your view but its more than this. China is biggest polluter now. Russia has most space but avoids immigration from Asia. Fast growing populations of lots of hot countries is a big problem that has no easy solution.
- whywhywhydude 4y agoDon’t know if people are following news carefully, but things are getting worse all over the world at the same time. One third of Pakistan is under water while China is seeing unprecedented drought.
- Geee 4y agoNone of these tipping points are exponential. Global warming is most likely an S-curve with a few degree maximum. Mispresenting the issue as an exponential is scaremongering. In the worst case, we would likely end up with something like the Eocene, where the whole planet is covered with forests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene#Flora
- popilewiz 4y ago
- jandrese 4y agoCovered with forests except for the parts that are new shallow oceans. This includes parts of the world like the American Midwest. Some countries will simply cease to exist.
- eimrine 4y agoGlobal heating caused by carbon in atmosphere => melting permafrost => releasing more carbon stored in permafrost => even more heating of globe. Even if it is S-curve I do not sure lots of people can survive Venus' climate.
- dmarchand90 4y agoAre you sure it's going to be like Venus? Didn't all the carbon used to be in the atmosphere in earlier points in history?
- criddell 4y agoEven the worst case predictions don't result in Venus-like temperatures, do they?
- jandrese 4y agoNo, but what if we got half way to Venus-like temperatures and only made it to 200C? In reality, the planet will stall out around 100C due to all of the water that needs to boil off and the huge steam clouds that would then increase the planet's albedo (but also trap heat). That's probably the top of the S-curve for the lifetime of mankind. Having the solar rays split that water and let the hydrogen escape to make an actual Venus like atmosphere is a more geological timescale process.
- pclmulqdq 4y agoI keep seeing people talk about the seriousness of climate change, but when it comes time to propose policy solutions, the answers are "$X trillion of dubiously helpful spending and restrict the supply of energy." I think we all agree (even the so-called "deniers") that climate change is a serious potential problem. What our civilizations disagree on is the solution. When the revealed policy preference of world leaders is to shut down the AC in summer in a desert, turn off the heat in a Scandanavian winter, and restrict energy supplies to developing countries, you don't have a workable solution. Current policy prescriptions are going to kill a lot more people than the warming they are trying to prevent. Further, it suggests that the most ardent activists are not actually serious about solving the problem: If they were serious, they would propose something less anti-human. Creating more studies about how bad it could be actually hurts the cause of stopping climate change at this point. It doesn't convince anyone.
- spywaregorilla 4y ago> I think we all agree (even the so-called "deniers") that climate change is a serious potential problem What gives you that kind of optimism? > shut down the AC in summer in a desert Lower AC in the summer > turn off the heat in a Scandanavian winter Lower the heat in the winter > restrict energy supplies to developing countries Not a thing. > Current policy prescriptions are going to kill a lot more people than the warming they are trying to prevent Incredibly dubious > Creating more studies about how bad it could be actually hurts the cause of stopping climate change at this point. It doesn't convince anyone. Not when people like you pop up to spout strawmen counter arguments at every point.
- starkd 4y agoRestricting access to cheap reliable energy is definitly going to cost lives. Ask any developing nation and they see the effects. It is one of the biggest issues that comes up whenever they try to get a global agreement. It's why China and India still insist on using coal to generate electricity.
- 4y ago
- newaccount2021 4y ago
- shrubble 4y agoLook carefully at these photos of the Martha's Vineyard vacation home of the Obamas, which cost a reported $11.75 million: https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-house-marthas-vineyard https://www.homesandgardens.com/news/president-obama-new-hou... Try to estimate the elevation above sea level of this house. Why buy a house that will very likely be under water, I mean in the non-financial sense?
- idiotsecant 4y agoThis might be a record for time from creation of thread until first random weird Obama implication.
- boppo1 4y agoBut, beyond conspiracies, he has a simple point. If climate change is is going to be a civilization-ending force, why would someone who ought to be well-informed sink a large amount of wealth into an at-risk property?
- bluGill 4y agoThey are expecting a government bailout when sea levels raise. You could make a big difference just by getting a lot of people to demand the government make all houses within 10 feet (pick a number) of sea level not eligible for government flood insurance. This will make all private insurance change their risk models. Some conservatives (those with a libertarian bent at least) have long noted that government bailouts as flood insurance has been a moral hazard allowing people to live cheaply in places they couldn't afford to live in otherwise.
- thehappypm 4y agoFirst of all, this property is elevated. It’s clearly not sitting at 5 feet of elevation. Second, $12m is peanuts for a former president.
- gspetr 4y ago
- liberia 4y agoThere's an interesting movie called Don't Look Up[0] which is a metaphor for climate change politics. > The impact event is an allegory for climate change, and the film is a satire of government, political, celebrity, and media indifference to the climate crisis.[6][7] After watching, I agreed that when the world eventually burns, people will be live streaming and tweeting about it instead of going out and actually doing something about it. We all have a part to play in this, and armchair activism behind the comfort of social media will do jack shit to solve this problem. Addressing climate change head on will be the biggest amount of cooperation humanity will ever have to do. After we address it, it will not be as hard to maintain decent temps. We can sail on this rock for millennia once we get out there and make shit happen. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Look_Up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Look_Up
- JustSomeNobody 4y ago> ... I agreed that when the world eventually burns... We're in the frying pan now and flame is cranked...
- colinmhayes 4y agoMan that movie was horrible. Unfortunate because it might've been helpful in convincing people to believe in consequences if it was good enough to finish.
- tsol 4y agoThe truth is, no one is willing to give up their comfort and luxury that's necessary to decrease global energy usage without putting lives at risk. It's technically possible, but people are use unwilling currently. I think as things get worse there will come a point where people start doing so out of overwhelming climate anxiety
- Cryptonic 4y agoIt will most likely and it's sad. How can I prepare my children for a world with such aclimate, energy, food and water shortages, more refugees than ever before and so on? Maybe I must ensure they are worth enough for the system to be taken care of. In Germany some PR campaign made people like my mother think "the greens plan to destroy our wealth" because they fear higher energy prices etc. but to be honest the conservatives now in charge for almost two decades did exacly that with not investing enouth in our grid and so on. It's so ironic that in the end the short term conservative approach destroys the mid and long term living conditions for so many.
- radford-neal 4y agoBefore becoming too alarmed, one might want to read about the Holocene Climate Optimum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum). Temperatures 8000 years ago were significantly higher than 200 years ago. Did the lucky people 8000 years ago just barely escape disastrous climate tipping points? Or maybe such tipping points aren't so likely...
- adgjlsfhk1 4y agoclimate change matters a lot more when you have trillions of dollars of infrastructure. before cities exist, it doesn't matter if a river moves half a mile. once you build a city on that river, the river moving now costs hundreds of millions of dollars.
- radford-neal 4y agoRivers courses change all the time regardless of climate change. But in any case, this has nothing to do with whether there are "tipping points".
- jandrese 4y agoA lot of people died 8000 years ago as well. Anybody who says that the Earth has been this hot before and survived is technically correct, but they should look at this map and consider the implications: https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/map-united-states-late-cretaceous-time https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/map-united-states-late-cre... This is not a minor inconvenience for some people if we do nothing. This is avoidable disaster that we are ignoring.
- radford-neal 4y agoThe late cretaceous was a lot longer than 8000 years ago. Lots of people did die 8000 years ago (of course!). It was also the time when important agricultural plants were being domesticated and civilization was beginning - probably because the climate was nice, allowing that to happen, when it hadn't for the previous 200,000 years of Homo sapiens' history.
- gmuslera 4y agoWe are running past safe conditions, for civilization, human life or maybe most of (complex enough) life on Earth. We are already past some of those tipping points, even before reaching an average of 1.5C globally (specially when there are regional differences, and for arctic regions the average is more in the 4ºC area, and that is where most of the permafrost thawing happens). And besides the known ones, there may be more tipping points that we are becoming aware of, like the increase of methane emissions from wetlands because hotter conditions, another positive feedback loop that may had been unexpected for some. And as feedback loops are becoming important protagonists on emissions over fossil carbon, things are getting out of our hands. We must do far more than just slow down if we want to survive in the long term.
- thehappypm 4y agoI seriously disagree. The “climate” part of climate change isnt the threat to civilization, it’s the “change” part. Sure, with an average warmer global climate, many places will become worse for human life and worse for agriculture with warming. But there is an absolutely enormous amount of land that moves into a better habitable and agriculture zone with warming as well. It’s not that a warmer climate makes human life impossible; we currently thrive from the Equator to Scandinavia just fine. It’s the change part thats the problem. It’s difficult to deal with whole agricultural areas needing to switch crops. Cities suddenly flooding when they used not to. New areas entering a death zone of heat index that previously were manageable
- gmuslera 4y agoOur current civilization is fragile. There are a lot of connections, a lot of interdependence, a lot of points of failure. Think what happened with COVID, both in spreading speed and the immediate consequences that could had been far worse, civilization-wise, like an economic crash or disruptive trends that started there and that are still lingering on. Yes, change is a problem. You can't just move a city, you can't make millions or billions of people lose what they had without ripples. But is not change to a new stable. It won't be a new stable. Even if we drop everything, stop emissions, commuting, economy and even our existence, things will keep changing, because at some point feedback loops will take the lead. We are at a point where doing less won't solve anything. And where risky path of actions will be taken.
- _vdpp 4y agoDownvote away, but the fearmongering is so tiresome (and has been for 30 years). The carbon emitters they want to eliminate are people. On geologic time scales the CO2 level has been way way higher than it is today and the planet was still teeming with life. Hey, speaking of tipping points, wasn’t climate change supposed to mean a constant stream of cat 5 hurricanes crashing into the eastern seaboard? And yet we just had a very quiet start of our hurricane season. Ah, but that’s weather, not climate. And yet whenever a bad weather event occurs, that’s evidence of climate change. Absence of bad weather is also evidence I guess. Almost like the whole thing is unfalsifiable. The climate changed before we ever got here and it will continue changing well after we’re gone. Just as the petrochemical lobby has an interest in downplaying effects, there are plenty of other people with a profitable interest in the fearmongering as well. Their salaries depend on you being terrified and they’re doing a great job of it. They use your tax money to fly to climate conferences in Bali, Singapore, Paris, Rome. I’d take them more seriously if the conferences were held via Zoom or in places like Cleveland or Houston. The politicians who keep telling me that this is a huge problem still fly their private jets everywhere and still own plenty of beachfront property. I’m more worried about a True Believer funding some kind of bioweapon to “heal the planet” and kill us all.
- jandrese 4y agoImagine making this post in the middle of China being in historic drought conditions. Historic flooding in Pakistan. Drought in the American west. Historic flooding in Kentucky. All of this in the past month. Also, please cite that Hurricane study. Your strawman private jet flying climate scientists should also be named. Two faced politicians aside, you do realize that people like Joe Biden have been riding the train for years to get to and from DC? Bernie Sanders doesn't own a private jet. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn't own a private jet, heck she was vilified in the media for upgrading to first class once.
- _vdpp 4y ago[dead]
- 4y ago
- Flocular 4y agoMentioning Greenland ice sheet in this context is always a bit of a red herring. It is important to note that in the language of these simulations no "overshoot" is included in the temperature trajectory. A 1.5°C global warming is talking about the long term (millenial timescale) stable temperature we reach after our little "experiment". If we can "quickly" (a few hundred years) return to 1.0°C or even less warming, compared to pre-industrial levels, these tipping points have not actually happened yet. (https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1418830/latest.pdf https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1418830/latest.pdf summarizes this very well) Nico Wunderling shows that while for some systems (like the Amazon rain forrest) peak temperature (even over only a few years) is most important, for slower systems like the Greenland ice sheet the target, long-term temperature is most dominant. Priotizing the most urgent matter should therefor lead us to talk about the quickly acting tipping points, often related to biological ecosystems. For those it is most important to actually stay below 2°C of warming. For the Greenland ice shield there is ample time after the year 2100 for us to prevent the worst.
- singularity2001 4y agoVery interesting and relevant to the discussion. But one meter sea rise is already happening this century
- RONROC 4y agoThe only way to offset carbon emissions at this stage is that a lot of people will have to die, bringing demand and consumption down dramatically. A war, famine, or general economic collapse (or all of the above) on a very large scale would technically solve this. This is what I believe policy makers and corporations think, and of course, none of them are saying that quiet part out loud.
- hotz 4y agoYay another fear porn article.
- gspetr 4y agoIf y'all think extinction for billions is just around the corner, consider that Saudi Arabia's capital, Riyadh has this forecast for next Tuesday: 44C(110F). And that temp is there most of the summer. "Saudi population has grown rapidly since 1950 when it was estimated to be 3 million, and for many years had one of the highest population growth rates in the world at around 3 per cent a year."
- alexschnapp 4y agoI haven’t been able to understand the problem behind sea level rise. Amsterdam and a lot of the Netherlands are below sea level (for centuries) and the dikes do its job, why can’t that be replicated elsewhere?
- timbit42 4y agoIt could be done but many countries couldn't afford it.