Political implications of global warming

Delta · Apr 20, 2009

deanhills said:
I find this very interesting. I believe some of the islands such as in the Maldives will be disappearing too. How about Hawai? Do you think this will be gradually? One day we will wake up and the President will do another fear call to everyone for a 1.2-trillion bail-out package to sort out all the cities on the coast lines?

The Maldives will definitely be affected. 80% of the land area of the Maldives is less than 1m above sea level.

I'm not sure about all of Hawaii, but I'm sure parts of it will be affected.

As for it being gradual, thats a relative term I guess. Current estimates based on our CO2 emissions (among quite a few other factors), put the rise of sea level from 0.5 to 2m by 2050 (with 0.5m being the most accepted estimate I believe).

deanhills · Apr 20, 2009

Delta said:
The Maldives will definitely be affected. 80% of the land area of the Maldives is less than 1m above sea level.

I'm not sure about all of Hawaii, but I'm sure parts of it will be affected.

As for it being gradual, thats a relative term I guess. Current estimates based on our CO2 emissions (among quite a few other factors), put the rise of sea level from 0.5 to 2m by 2050 (with 0.5m being the most accepted estimate I believe).

Very interesting facts, thanks Delta. I can imagine housing values of sea-facing properties in Malibu will be dropping gradually? Looks as though Arizona and Mexican interior are attractive areas to invest in

GekiDan · Apr 20, 2009

deanhills said:
I find this very interesting. I believe some of the islands such as in the Maldives will be disappearing too. How about Hawai? Do you think this will be gradually? One day we will wake up and the President will do another fear call to everyone for a 1.2-trillion bail-out package to sort out all the cities on the coast lines?

Some islands here in the Philippines are also disappearing especially in high tide. I remember seeing a part of Boracay island being washed out by big tidal waves. The shore was once 10 meters long but now, it's merely 2-3 meters long.

curious · Apr 21, 2009

I managed to get hold of a Newsweek from the beginning of the month, in Engllish. (Remember, I'm in Mexico.) There was an interview with the Secretary of Engergy, a Nobel Laureate in physics. He said that we could manage a 1 or 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature. It would be painful, but we could probably handle it. Anything more than that, and it would be a catastrophy, according to him, something we really couldn't adapt to.

A half meter would put the barrier island I used to live on in Florida under water.

Some coastal places wouldn't be hit so hard because they are on cliffs, but not many. A great many of the South Pacific islands are atolls, and the highest of them are only a few feet above sea level at their highest point.

deanhills · Apr 21, 2009

curious said:
I managed to get hold of a Newsweek from the beginning of the month, in Engllish. (Remember, I'm in Mexico.) There was an interview with the Secretary of Engergy, a Nobel Laureate in physics. He said that we could manage a 1 or 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature. It would be painful, but we could probably handle it. Anything more than that, and it would be a catastrophy, according to him, something we really couldn't adapt to.

A half meter would put the barrier island I used to live on in Florida under water.

Some coastal places wouldn't be hit so hard because they are on cliffs, but not many. A great many of the South Pacific islands are atolls, and the highest of them are only a few feet above sea level at their highest point.

Here goes my dream of one day living on an island far far away. Guess the Channel Islands will be in trouble too, how about the British Isles? Maybe like Holland they will have to work on methods to create dry land?

curious · Apr 22, 2009

Those places have an elevation of more than a few feet above high tide. Some of the barrier islands aren't that high. The highest point in Florida is 345 feet above sea level. That's 105 meters and change.

Dirk · May 1, 2009

deanhills said:
Very interesting facts, thanks Delta. I can imagine housing values of sea-facing properties in Malibu will be dropping gradually? Looks as though Arizona and Mexican interior are attractive areas to invest in

Nah, think Rockies... No chance of flooding and pleasant cool breezes, particularly in winter.

Glee · May 1, 2009

curious said:
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?

This is an interesting topic heading, but I'm not quite sure what the point you're trying to make is. Not trying to be mean, far from it, but it seems you thoughts are a bit scattered and I'm not sure what you want to say or what you might want to know. Sorry. Maybe I'm missing something.

curious · May 1, 2009

I guess I was just trying to say there are more political implications than the on-going one over whether global warming is real, and what should be done to reduce it. I think there are major problems ahead that no one is planning for, such as major water shortages and food shortages, the loss of arable land, mass migration of people. Since I think we are past a major tipping point (350 ppm of carbon dioxide), we have to look at managing the effects.

deanhills · May 2, 2009

curious said:
I guess I was just trying to say there are more political implications than the on-going one over whether global warming is real, and what should be done to reduce it. I think there are major problems ahead that no one is planning for, such as major water shortages and food shortages, the loss of arable land, mass migration of people. Since I think we are past a major tipping point (350 ppm of carbon dioxide), we have to look at managing the effects.

Agreed. Especially regarding overpopulation, as the more overpopulated the worse pollution in terms of using resources (water, air, food), generating waste, need for electricity etc.

curious · May 2, 2009

Yeah, what ever happened to the campaigns to reduce population growth? They were very successful in most of SE Asia. I remember Malaysia with billboards saying 'This is a family" and showing a father, mother, and two children. Thailand was very successful, and Indonesia has cut the number of children per family dramatically. Someone there told me that the government just kept pointing out that a large family was pretty much a guarantee of poverty.

But I don't know that there have been successful campaigsn in Africa. And India certainly has not done well. People often say that China and India are going to be the next superpowers, but I think India is doomed by its failure to reduce the rate of population growth.

GekiDan · May 3, 2009

I can't really tell if the population growth here in the Philippines is decreasing or increasing since I haven't heard any reports on the media. But I can say that most poor people here have large familes, mostly from 5-12 children and sometimes more.

deanhills · May 3, 2009

curious said:
But I don't know that there have been successful campaigsn in Africa.

Agreed. And that has not been for lack of trying by world organizations. For example in Southern Africa people are even resistant to wearing condoms, looking upon the HIV scare as something of a colonial attempt to interfere with bearing of children. It is not only lack of education that is a problem there, but lack of care as also a great imbalance of poor and wealthy.

curious · May 3, 2009

In many parts of the world children are regarded as pensions, someone who will provide for you in your old age. And in some areas they are a mark of a man's virility.

Most campaigns are aimed at women, and that has worked in areas where women have some degree of say in a marriage. But in countries where they don't have any control at all, I think the campaigns shoudl be aimed at the men.

GekiDan · May 4, 2009

curious said:
Most campaigns are aimed at women, and that has worked in areas where women have some degree of say in a marriage. But in countries where they don't have any control at all, I think the campaigns should be aimed at the men.

I agree to you in this post.
Men contributes a lot in population growth because there are some instances that men will force the woman to do it and thus the woman will bear a child. They should give more programs that aim males like vasectomy or free condoms to reduce population growth.

deanhills · May 4, 2009

GekiDan said:
I agree to you in this post.
Men contributes a lot in population growth because there are some instances that men will force the woman to do it and thus the woman will bear a child. They should give more programs that aim males like vasectomy or free condoms to reduce population growth.

Good idea, and good thinking, but from a practical implementation point of view I can see enormous revolts with that. Especially in Africa. Aren't the catholics against it too? The catholic church I think has contributed significantly to this problem too. Except of course the focus has always only been on women.

GekiDan · May 4, 2009

deanhills said:
Good idea, and good thinking, but from a practical implementation point of view I can see enormous revolts with that. Especially in Africa. Aren't the catholics against it too? The catholic church I think has contributed significantly to this problem too. Except of course the focus has always only been on women.

Yes. The Catholic Church are against these kinds of acts and considers it anti-life. But the government is still pursuing it on the congress(here in the RP).

Nowadays, being practical is a must. We must prevent unnecessary births to stay away from poverty.

deanhills · May 4, 2009

GekiDan said:
Yes. The Catholic Church are against these kinds of acts and considers it anti-life. But the government is still pursuing it on the congress(here in the RP).

Nowadays, being practical is a must. We must prevent unnecessary births to stay away from poverty.

I know this will probably draw lots of criticism, but I think birth should be much more selective too. From a medical point of view. If they can optimize embryos with gene modifications so that people could be disease free, i.e. guard them against cancers, create good immune systems etc. Just imagine the savings in medicine?

GekiDan · May 5, 2009

deanhills said:
I know this will probably draw lots of criticism, but I think birth should be much more selective too. From a medical point of view. If they can optimize embryos with gene modifications so that people could be disease free, i.e. guard them against cancers, create good immune systems etc. Just imagine the savings in medicine?

Well, you can save more by doing that but the Church will definitely insists on that move.
On the final thought, it is still the parent's decision on what to do.

deanhills · May 5, 2009

GekiDan said:
Well, you can save more by doing that but the Church will definitely insists on that move.
On the final thought, it is still the parent's decision on what to do.

Yes, thank goodness the freedom of choice is still there. Who knows, maybe in a few decades when the world can't deal with overpopulation any longer, that freedom of choice may not be available any longer?

Political implications of global warming

Similar threads