4 ms·

The biggest risk for climate change has always been food production and economic water availability. Just look at the western US that depends on the Colorado R

The biggest risk for climate change has always been food production and economic water availability. Just look at the western US that depends on the Colorado River for the risk involved. We can live most anywhere on the planet, and that isn't going to change. Though relocating from higher risk areas to lower has a cost that will be inflicted on those who are in an area where the risk shifts. If it happens on a long enough timescale the effects won't be that great as we're generally rebuilding our infrastructure on regular intervals anyway. I always wonder why we focus so much on prevention instead of mitigation the actual risk cases. Instead of curbing emissions, which seems to have no effect (see economic down turns with corresponding dips in emissions as evidence with no apparent results in CO2 levels). Why don't we invest in better water distribution systems and food production resilience? Instead of making it hip to have a lower carbon footprint, why don't we change what being "green" means to, say gardening?

shagie 4y ago
That water availability... Is a Lack of Water to Blame for the Conflict in Syria? - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water-to-blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water... > A 2006 drought pushed Syrian farmers to migrate to urban centers, setting the stage for massive uprisings > In Syria, a devastating drought beginning in 2006 forced many farmers to abandon their fields and migrate to urban centers. There’s some evidence that the migration fueled the civil war there, in which 80,000 people have died. “You had a lot of angry, unemployed men helping to trigger a revolution,” says Aaron Wolf, a water management expert at Oregon State University, who frequently visits the Middle East. > Tensions between nations are also high. Since 1975, Turkey’s dam and hydropower construction has cut water flow to Iraq by 80 percent and to Syria by 40 percent. Syria and Iraq have accused Turkey of hoarding water. From a few years ago - the US Army's assessment of issues with climate change: https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/impli... --- > We can live most anywhere on the planet, and that isn't going to change. Though relocating from higher risk areas to lower has a cost that will be inflicted on those who are in an area where the risk shifts. If it happens on a long enough timescale the effects won't be that great as we're generally rebuilding our infrastructure on regular intervals anyway. I would challenge you to tell the people in the Southwest of the US to move out... or the Middle East... or desert parts of Africa... or small island nations in the Pacific. An approach of relocating people from where it isn't sustainable to live in the future to where it is has the risk of devastating the cultures associated with those areas. It is preserving those cultures that is important and the reason that it is necessary to try to prevent as much climate change as is possible. It likely won't be enough, and mitigation will also be needed but going to a "well, its too bad your island home of centuries is now under water, we'll just move you to an enclave in Europe" or "well, this part of South Western Asia is no longer inhabitable, we'll set up an enclave for you somewhere else" - those approaches tend not to work too well.
- BackBlast 4y ago
  > I would challenge you to tell the people in the Southwest of the US to move out... or the Middle East... or desert parts of Africa... or small island nations in the Pacific. Why would I try to do that? Seems authoritarian and wrong to tell people they can't try to live some place. The issue is economics and risks. Let them assume them as they will, no need force move anyone. Water has always been an issue in the west. I'm rather familiar with it as I have researched water rights and live in this region. There is nothing untenable about living in the south western US. Going into the nuance here you seem to be missing. Water rights for the region are principally based on who arrived first. This was intentionally done by the first settlers to insure their own access. As little as 10 years ago you couldn't even collect rain water because you would impede the water access of a water right's owner down stream. Over time this has been tweaked and oh so slowly modernized. It's time for a major overhaul as the quantity is based on the flows that just aren't there anymore. So the water is over allocated, and the costs paid by the water rights owners often do not reflect its scarcity. So you have people with lots of water rights using it to grow animal feed and otherwise farm the desert in a region that is increasingly water scarce. There is plenty of water in the region to support the population if the use cases are allowed to be more elastic. A system needs to be put in place that ALL users pay based on availability, which would provide funds to maintain and build more capacity. If we really value humans then miscellaneous environmental concerns should not be allowed to block large scale water projects. Making such moves would allow people to live there as they desire by removing the cheap water away from mostly farmers and some industrial uses in the region. Which will disrupt a lot of food supplies. This is why I believe our efforts are best centered around food and water, not emissions.

shagie 4y ago

That water availability... Is a Lack of Water to Blame for the Conflict in Syria? - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water-to-blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water... > A 2006 drought pushed Syrian farmers to migrate to urban centers, setting the stage for massive uprisings > In Syria, a devastating drought beginning in 2006 forced many farmers to abandon their fields and migrate to urban centers. There’s some evidence that the migration fueled the civil war there, in which 80,000 people have died. “You had a lot of angry, unemployed men helping to trigger a revolution,” says Aaron Wolf, a water management expert at Oregon State University, who frequently visits the Middle East. > Tensions between nations are also high. Since 1975, Turkey’s dam and hydropower construction has cut water flow to Iraq by 80 percent and to Syria by 40 percent. Syria and Iraq have accused Turkey of hoarding water. From a few years ago - the US Army's assessment of issues with climate change: https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/implications-of-climate-change-for-us-army_army-war-college_2019.pdf https://climateandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/impli... --- > We can live most anywhere on the planet, and that isn't going to change. Though relocating from higher risk areas to lower has a cost that will be inflicted on those who are in an area where the risk shifts. If it happens on a long enough timescale the effects won't be that great as we're generally rebuilding our infrastructure on regular intervals anyway. I would challenge you to tell the people in the Southwest of the US to move out... or the Middle East... or desert parts of Africa... or small island nations in the Pacific. An approach of relocating people from where it isn't sustainable to live in the future to where it is has the risk of devastating the cultures associated with those areas. It is preserving those cultures that is important and the reason that it is necessary to try to prevent as much climate change as is possible. It likely won't be enough, and mitigation will also be needed but going to a "well, its too bad your island home of centuries is now under water, we'll just move you to an enclave in Europe" or "well, this part of South Western Asia is no longer inhabitable, we'll set up an enclave for you somewhere else" - those approaches tend not to work too well.

BackBlast 4y ago
> I would challenge you to tell the people in the Southwest of the US to move out... or the Middle East... or desert parts of Africa... or small island nations in the Pacific. Why would I try to do that? Seems authoritarian and wrong to tell people they can't try to live some place. The issue is economics and risks. Let them assume them as they will, no need force move anyone. Water has always been an issue in the west. I'm rather familiar with it as I have researched water rights and live in this region. There is nothing untenable about living in the south western US. Going into the nuance here you seem to be missing. Water rights for the region are principally based on who arrived first. This was intentionally done by the first settlers to insure their own access. As little as 10 years ago you couldn't even collect rain water because you would impede the water access of a water right's owner down stream. Over time this has been tweaked and oh so slowly modernized. It's time for a major overhaul as the quantity is based on the flows that just aren't there anymore. So the water is over allocated, and the costs paid by the water rights owners often do not reflect its scarcity. So you have people with lots of water rights using it to grow animal feed and otherwise farm the desert in a region that is increasingly water scarce. There is plenty of water in the region to support the population if the use cases are allowed to be more elastic. A system needs to be put in place that ALL users pay based on availability, which would provide funds to maintain and build more capacity. If we really value humans then miscellaneous environmental concerns should not be allowed to block large scale water projects. Making such moves would allow people to live there as they desire by removing the cheap water away from mostly farmers and some industrial uses in the region. Which will disrupt a lot of food supplies. This is why I believe our efforts are best centered around food and water, not emissions.