Political implications of global warming

[curious]

I'm not talking about the bickering over whether it's real, though that seems to have faded, or the discussions about whether it's caused or accelerated by human activity (though if it isn't we are really in trouble, because there's nothing we can do about it), but the bigger issues, like water wars and mass migration.

If the predictions about dry climates getting drier, and wet climates getting wetter, are anywhere near realistic, I think we are looking at:

Fights over water rights
Food shortages
Mass migration away from the extreme areas

If predictions about a possible ice age, and the initial shortened or eliminated growing season should come true, I think we are looking at pretty much the same thing, except we'll be fighting over arable land.

When these things are contained within a country, they present local political problems. When they cross borders, the problems are enormous.

We are accustomed to seeing refugees stream across borders in Africa and Asia. How would we handle it if that happened in the west? How would the US react if a developing ice age made Canada uninhabitable and all of Canada tried to move to the US? How would Europe react if faced with massive numbers of refugees from the Scandinavian countries and the UK?

 

[GekiDan]

I think that each country who is asked for help by other countries will help them until they can. I mean, each country, leaders, and citizens, will do their best to help each other out when it comes to food, shelter and other things.

Like how a rich and influencial country like US help other countries.

 

[Delta]

I think that each country who is asked for help by other countries will help them until they can. I mean, each country, leaders, and citizens, will do their best to help each other out when it comes to food, shelter and other things.

Like how a rich and influencial country like US help other countries.

I wouldn't be so sure of this. I mean, even now look at countries in Africa. Sure there might be a little help - but not near enough. It's all going to come down to wealth - the wealthy will be saved and the poor will suffer.

 

[deanhills]

The old familiar theme of focussing only on self-interest, and giving away as little as possible without a quid per pro deal. Think that is going to be the world's downfall in environmental matters as from what I have learned we are very behind in the damages that are being done and trying to fix it. For example we should have been much further in the development of technology that does not burn fossil fuels, which apparently is key in global warming issues. We should also have been further in the protection of our scarce water resources and quality of air, a direct consequence of burning fossil fuels.

 

[curious]

Probably we'll do both, be generous, at least to those who are like us, and then turn to total self-interest if it proves to be unsustainable. There are all sorts of things that could happen that we haven't had to deal with in the developed world, like massive migrations of people from one location to another. But since we are probably not going to do much that is effective to even slow global warming, we probably should be considering what the consequences will be.

 

[deanhills]

Probably we'll do both, be generous, at least to those who are like us, and then turn to total self-interest if it proves to be unsustainable. There are all sorts of things that could happen that we haven't had to deal with in the developed world, like massive migrations of people from one location to another. But since we are probably not going to do much that is effective to even slow global warming, we probably should be considering what the consequences will be.

You put it much better than I did with an additional insight The massive migration from one location to another is an important reality. Both because of war and bad economies. The ones from war are well known and fact, and of course those wars are also detrimental to environment in an extreme way, but the economic ones where people in lesser countries in South America for example are migrating to the developing countries in Europe, US etc, are having an enormous impact "silently". In the UK for example it is putting pressure on the education system as growing percentages of children cannot speak English, or has English as a second language. This calls for different teaching methods with additional costs, also a total new English language as well as demographics of the population that will have a determining effect on society in years to come. Will especially be interesting to see what will be happening with future Government and Politics.

 

[curious]

The Latin American immigration to the US has had enormous impact, but still it has happened gradually. If global warming gradually makes places uninhabitable by the number of people that currently live there, it will be rough. But we'll manage. But if things change rapidly, I wonder how we will handle it. It only takes three years to go from exceptionally warm temperatures to the beginnings of an ice age.

 

[Glee]

Well definitely, no matter who won the last United States election, both McCain and Obama were all for implementing Green-policies across the nation. And when anti-global warming people complained, the chief argument seemed to be "What's the harm in trying cleaning solutions?" In todays economy I think the answer is clear. We don't have the money to re-invent the wheel right now. The harm is wasting money we don't have on experimental projects based on a theory. An alarming and ever expanding one, but still a theory. I'm ALL for doing what we can to keep the Earth clean. I'm pretty sure us wasting fuels and making loads of trash isn't a good thing. But when the nation is on the verge of closing in on its self, I'm not worried about how much Carbon Emissions my family is causing. I pretty much think that most of these Green policies are fronts for government-owned businesses to rake in money. I would hope that these green policies actually do something to help the environment, but the fact is that we really don't know about those either. So while the pro-global warming guys are asking "What's the harm?" I'd like to ask this: "It certainly can't hurt to research this more before we waste valuable resources on this, can it?"

 

[deanhills]

Well definitely, no matter who won the last United States election, both McCain and Obama were all for implementing Green-policies across the nation. And when anti-global warming people complained, the chief argument seemed to be "What's the harm in trying cleaning solutions?" In todays economy I think the answer is clear. We don't have the money to re-invent the wheel right now. The harm is wasting money we don't have on experimental projects based on a theory. An alarming and ever expanding one, but still a theory. I'm ALL for doing what we can to keep the Earth clean. I'm pretty sure us wasting fuels and making loads of trash isn't a good thing. But when the nation is on the verge of closing in on its self, I'm not worried about how much Carbon Emissions my family is causing. I pretty much think that most of these Green policies are fronts for government-owned businesses to rake in money. I would hope that these green policies actually do something to help the environment, but the fact is that we really don't know about those either. So while the pro-global warming guys are asking "What's the harm?" I'd like to ask this: "It certainly can't hurt to research this more before we waste valuable resources on this, can it?"

Good points. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. All the nice words we get, including the jargon for the bail-out packages, and there is very substance to the facts. I still have no clear picture of the exact big bank dilemma in terms of the toxic parts due to real estate loans, how much there is of it, how the 1.2 trillion dollars will be spent, what happens if some of the banks (such as citibank) do not need bail-out, etc. etc. There is very little in terms of clear and simple specifics.

 

[mattaff]

I believe most countries will adapt ok but obviously should things get extreme there will be slight shifts in power and global economics. Advanced countries will Develop technologies quicker and hopefully will not concentrate on self preservation and rather conservation of the under developed countries tat are going to get hit hardest

 

[curious]

I think we should focus on things that impact global warming and have other detrimental effects.

We need to do something about dependence on oil. It's dirty and it may be that we will run out of it. And it certainly isn't good to give other countries, the ones with the oil, so much power over our economy. But even worse is the health problems it causes, especiallly in cities that suffer from temperature inversions.

Water is already a problem, and we need to put a lot of effort into using less, and I mean in big ways. For instance, we should stop growing rice in the deserts of California. We should really evaluate water rights and where we grow things, so that we grow crops in appropriate areas. Rice in Louisiana, yes. In southern California, no.

We may spend a lot of money on things that don't pan out, but that money will help rebuild the economy. It's tempting to stop things that aren't immediately cost effective. But most things become more efficient over time. Air conditioners, for instance, are much more efficient than they used to be, and cars are more reliable. Should we have given up on cars because the Model T broke down a lot?

 

[deanhills]

I think we should focus on things that impact global warming and have other detrimental effects.

We need to do something about dependence on oil. It's dirty and it may be that we will run out of it. And it certainly isn't good to give other countries, the ones with the oil, so much power over our economy. But even worse is the health problems it causes, especiallly in cities that suffer from temperature inversions.

Water is already a problem, and we need to put a lot of effort into using less, and I mean in big ways. For instance, we should stop growing rice in the deserts of California. We should really evaluate water rights and where we grow things, so that we grow crops in appropriate areas. Rice in Louisiana, yes. In southern California, no.

We may spend a lot of money on things that don't pan out, but that money will help rebuild the economy. It's tempting to stop things that aren't immediately cost effective. But most things become more efficient over time. Air conditioners, for instance, are much more efficient than they used to be, and cars are more reliable. Should we have given up on cars because the Model T broke down a lot?

I wonder what the indirect impact is going to be of the 1.2-trillion spending packet on global warming. Perhaps if the economy had been forced to cool off naturally, then the environment would have had a chance to take a deep breath. Wonder whether the world needs to announce certain areas as prohibited from putting up new factories. Just like some of the diving sites in the Red Sea when the coral reefs have been damaged. To close them off so that they can regenerate themselves again.

 

[The Parakeet]

The bailout mainly gave money to information technology and green technology. That boost is helping them get a bit more interest and development. In the end, that might help the environment more than a cool off time.

 

[deanhills]

The bailout mainly gave money to information technology and green technology. That boost is helping them get a bit more interest and development. In the end, that might help the environment more than a cool off time.

Maybe. I just feel that we are generating too much garbage. For example last night I had a frozen dinner, and it had about four layers of plastic. There was the carton box outside, then a plastic box inside, then a plastic wrapping around the frozen dinner, and then there was the container with the frozen dinner. All for marketing and possibly hygiene and convenience but with major implications for the environment. Like with the financial industry, wish we could simplify our consumption of food and go back to simple basics. With the finance industry I wish they would get rid of the big banks and start those little credit unions that used to be so close to their customers. And with food, maybe we need to take our own baskets to the supermarket and have our own containers filled with bulk foods. Bottomline, we really need to make changes on every level. Instead people don't want to make changes but are propping up stuff that ain't working anymore. They don't want the pain.

 

[Glee]

Good points. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately. All the nice words we get, including the jargon for the bail-out packages, and there is very substance to the facts. I still have no clear picture of the exact big bank dilemma in terms of the toxic parts due to real estate loans, how much there is of it, how the 1.2 trillion dollars will be spent, what happens if some of the banks (such as citibank) do not need bail-out, etc. etc. There is very little in terms of clear and simple specifics.

No another note, I am so glad I'm not in charge. No matter what decision you make you're going to have meanie poopoo-heads on both sides swearing you're wrong. There is not compromise between either side. It must be very frustrating to deal with.

 

[deanhills]

No another note, I am so glad I'm not in charge. No matter what decision you make you're going to have meanie poopoo-heads on both sides swearing you're wrong. There is not compromise between either side. It must be very frustrating to deal with.

Exactly. Best scenario would have been no Government interference at all with the process and to have allowed the big Banks to fail as they should have, or, if they were totally convinced that intervention was needed, for an independent Watch Dog Committee to have been appointed so that the President and Government would have had minimal input, as clearly they're not trained for that job, nor are Government finance officials trained for the job. The Watchdog Committee could have consisted of US Finance Experts and perhaps one or two finance representatives from Government.

 

[curious]

Exactly. Best scenario would have been no Government interference at all with the process and to have allowed the big Banks to fail as they should have, or, if they were totally convinced that intervention was needed, for an independent Watch Dog Committee to have been appointed so that the President and Government would have had minimal input, as clearly they're not trained for that job, nor are Government finance officials trained for the job. The Watchdog Committee could have consisted of US Finance Experts and perhaps one or two finance representatives from Government.

Well, where would you have gotten these independent watchdogs. The only people who know anything about this stuff are the people who created the problem, some government people, and some academics.

I don't agree at all that there should have been no interfernce. That's what made the Great Depression the Great Depression. No interference.

I believe we are still in danger of repeating that experience. But we had to try something. You shouldn't just sit back and say, "Oh, this is complicated, so let the chips fall where they may. So a whole lot of Americans have nowhere to live and no way to feed their families and people starve. That's OK, because we will end up with a healthy banking system! And after all the economic institutions are the goal, not the well-being of Americans."

None of you seem to think that your children or grandchildren might actually starve if things go south. Or that your children or grandchildren won't get educations. Or that you might end up living in a cardboard box. I absolutely believe that it could get that bad.

 

[deanhills]

That's what made the Great Depression the Great Depression. No interference.

Why are people always harping on the Great Depression? What has that got to do with the present, and who started referring to the Great Depression? Were they not the people who wanted to sell the idea of bailing out the big banks? Think about it for a while, who are banking with the big banks, and how much money of theirs are with the big banks. Aren't they the people who are wealthy and large corporations? I'm sorry, this repeated reference to the Great Depression is just fear mongering to get compliance from the public. Bailing the situation out with 1.2-trillion is also going to have some very good repercussions, and those are solid common sense ones.

 

[curious]

Why are people always harping on the Great Depression? What has that got to do with the present, and who started referring to the Great Depression? Were they not the people who wanted to sell the idea of bailing out the big banks? Think about it for a while, who are banking with the big banks, and how much money of theirs are with the big banks. Aren't they the people who are wealthy and large corporations? I'm sorry, this repeated reference to the Great Depression is just fear mongering to get compliance from the public. Bailing the situation out with 1.2-trillion is also going to have some very good repercussions, and those are solid common sense ones.

Because the Great Depression was very, very bad and it is the only real reference point we have. I agree that what is being done will have a big impact, and my argument is that doing nothing, as some people are arguing here, had bad consequences in the past. The past is important because it gives us a chance to stop doing the same stupid things over and over again.

 

[GekiDan]

The past is important because it gives us a chance to stop doing the same stupid things over and over again.

I definitely agree to this statement. Besides, we don't want something bad to happen again and again. The word WAR, in my opinion, is the most stupid thing or word that was invented by man. You know why? Because in a war, you can't just target just one person. It will always the innocent people that gets affected.

Do you agree with me?