Look here is what I am trying to say :
We could change and prevent most of the severe effects from happening but we're not doing it and the arguments when you look at it is that people are not willing to change their lifestyles which is understandable. Yet what I am trying to explain is that this change will happen either way regardless if we decide to do something or not. We have only two choices here. A very bad and disruptive effect in the near future which will affect everyone one way or another or we accept some not so severe changes now to enjoy a decent future. There is no middle ground. Just as how you can't get half Aids or half cancer or partial diabetes or half of a pregnancy. You either have it or you don't. And you either do something against it or you deal with the consequences. Yes some people will suffer eventually less from those consequences but they will hit everyone. It's like a global impact if you want. If it is large enough like 1 km in diameter you can not say that some people won't be affected.
Crni, you keep equating "affected" with "doom", but GonZo *IS* right about opening arable land in the permafrost. When it comes time to asking oneself things - ask yourself why Russia pushes so hard for denial, and then ask yourself what Russia could have to lose from melting ice caps in the arctic.
You could then say "VLADIVOSTOK WOULD BE AFFECTED CHECK MATE BUDDY!" and yes, yes, absolutely - Vladivostok would be affected: But arable land would open up. Minable land would open up. Previously frozen resources would come available.
I already addressed that.
I quote my self here :
This might be true if the global average temperature doesn't move past 2°. But right now we're on a path where it exceeds 4° by 2060 and even 6° by 2090 (...)
This land we're talking about will also not suddenly turn in to a paradise because it's a few degrees warmer or a place where you can perform sophisticated mining operations. You have actually no infrastructure in most of those areas and the soil is quite often really not suitable for a lot of agriculture and livestock either. You have vast areas of land on this planet where no one is farming anything right now because nothing is growing there but grass. A problem that farmers in Brazil for example are constantly dealing with while they burn down the rain forests. The Soil they gain here is quite often unsuited for farming because of the missing eco system. The trees are in a symbiotic relationship with the plants, insects, animals and mushrooms on the ground constantly fertilizing the areas. Now I am not an expert on agriculture but the correct level of nitrates, nitrogen and the like are essential for most crops. If those are missing the ground becomes for the most part useless for farming after a few yields. We right now get around this by using large amounts of fertilizers but this comes with it's own problems. It requires excellent infrastructures and we're also running out of resources for manufacturing them and at some point the soil can get overfertilize. But more organic ways of farming doesn't even get close to the yields we require to feed the current populations. And nations like Canada, the US and Europe are very depended on global food production and global trade. Much more than we realize. And if those collapse we can not just switch over to domestic food production in a few months. In the next few decades we will be facing what one could see as biblical events. This is not like zero-sum game where one path is closed and another one is suddenly opened. Oh hey global food production collapsed but we can now send ships trough the arctic which saves us a couple of days to get the grain and products no one is manufacturing anymore! Hey! 90% of our worlds industry is gone but we can open a few mines and oil companies in Siberia now to produce goods no one is buying anymore! *Russian voice* Splendid where are my oil-dollars now?
I am truly sorry but it is laughable to talk about those few possible positive instances where parts of Siberia or Canada could become hospitable to a small number of people while we talk about BILLIONS(!) which will be affected by rising sea levels, gigantic draughts, large storms and other extreme events. It's like living in a bubble where we belief there is a cop-out from global events taking place.
That's the point.
The only comfort I take out of it is when those events take place almost no one can say he didn't knew it. Science has told us about it for the last 60 years.
Now - the following part is very, very important: I do not think that it is nice.
I don´t think it is nice for Vladivostok to be heavily affected by rising sea levels, as well as St. Petersburg. I do NOT think it is NICE.
Good.
But the fact remains - Russian oligarcs - will win money - by melting the tundra. They will win money - by opening up the arctic trade routes permanently. THEY - THEY will win money! Me, Zegh, I will not win money - but THEY will!
Leading experts say they wont. Which includes also economists. Not in the long run. The few positive points they might gain from it will be superseded by all the negative effects. They 'belief' for what ever crazy reason they will make tons of money from it. Here are some economic effects of the climate crisis :
For the US :
A common argument made against climate-change mitigation is that it’s bad for the economy. A new US government report released Friday (Nov. 23) says it will be much worse for America’s economic health to do nothing.
Labor losses
Climate change could have a big impact on labor, a key pillar of the economy. By the end of the century, productivity losses due to extreme heat in jobs that require being outside, such as agriculture and construction, could result in some $160 billion in lost wages a year, according to the report.
Higher energy costs
Another big economic blow will come from rising energy costs: up to $87 billion a year by 2100 due to mounting demand on a power system made less reliable by extreme weather.
Damaged infrastructure
As much as $507 billion’s worth of real estate is at risk of being inundated by rising sea levels by 2100, according to the report. Inland, flooding could destroy thousands of bridges, resulting in damages of $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion a year by 2050.
Shrinking environmental capital
Americans would also suffer from the losses of natural resources they now bank on. Ocean acidification would take a toll—of up to $230 million—on shellfish harvests. Disappearing coral reefs alone would shave $140 billion off the recreation industry; cold-water fishing and skiing would also be affected.
https://qz.com/1473794/government-report-climate-change-will-cost-the-us-economy-billions/
And this will look similar in many other nations. In most even worse.
Russia :
This report undertakes a long-term economic evaluation of the losses, profits, and risks for agriculture connected to climate change throughout the territory of the Russian Federation. The analysis focuses primarily on grain production, since this sector is perhaps the most dependent on weather and climate factors. Issues connected with the impacts of climate change on the production of other crops, as well as on animal husbandry, require additional research.
The report focuses mainly on an economic evaluation of the impact of climate change on crop production at the national level, and it features an analysis of the situation in the country’s agricultural regions where the negative effects of climate change are especially pronounced. The final part of the report examines the prospects for adapting Russia’s agriculture to climate change.
This research relied on open sources of data and information, publications by Russian science and research institutes, international organizations, and the opinions of experts and specialists
(...)
1.3. Impact of climate on agricultural production (natural output indicators)
(...)
To sum up the ideas presented in this section, we can say that most Russian and international science and research institutes project a significant drop in grain harvests in the Russian Federation triggered by climate change. Quantitative estimates of the decrease will be used to analyse the economic loss in the following sections.
https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxf...imate-change-agriculture-russia-010413-en.pdf
And we're still talking only about a change in 2° for the most part. With temperatures above 4° even large parts of the United States will become completely inhospitable. Maybe Canada will start to build a wall then? We have to wait and see I guess.
There´s even the possibility of massively HABITATING northern Siberia. Can you imagine? Again - importantissimo: I don´t think it´s a nice thing to sacrifice the entire world for increased productivity in northern Siberia, this is not ME agreeing - but it DOES remain a fact: Global warming is GOOD for capitalists and oligarcs. That is why they push for it: It´s good for THEM (not ME, but THEM!)
The same goes for Canada. Canada is not A person. Canada is not GonZo. Canada is their tycoons, oligarcs and CEOs - they WILL NOT give a shit. It costs them MONEY to give shits. They will HURL the ENTIRE POPULATION of THEIR COUNTRY into HELL - if they can earn a few bucks doing it: And that is WHY they ARE doing it!
Crni, you have grown dear in my heart - but ... *twitch* you´re SO RIGHT about some things, and ... you come SO SO CLOSE to really getting it! The closest you get is when you lamentingly go "we´re all fucked" because we aaaaaaaaaare...
Bolsanaro green-lit the utter destruction of the Amazon, not because I think it´s nice (and I don´t, believe me), not because "Brazil" thinks it´s nice - not because anybody thinks its nice! But because lumber and cattle and resource tycoons will get even richer than they allready are. Because capitalism is ALWAYS about continued growth. Capitalism does not maintain itself to sustain itself - it ONLY GROWS to sustain itself.
Bolsanaro does NOT think chopping down the Amazon will be good for people. He KNOWS it will be BAD for EVERYONE - but he will make money. His friends will make money. They will stay in their air conditioned haciendas somewhere, and sip mojitos while the rest of us boil.
NONE of this means "nice" - I cannot stress that enough. None of this means sea levels aren´t rising, polar caps aren´t melting, and people aren´t suffering around the world. It means that the capitalist powers that push for it will make money regardless of suffering, PLAN to continue making money through increased suffering, and that *that* is pretty much *why* this is happening.
Compare it to other suffering-based capitalist ventures, like military, narcotics and human trafficking.
Human trafficking is SUPER AWESOME for banks and private investors. SUPER AWESOME!!! That does *not* mean it´s good for everybody else! It´s bad for everybody else! And sad! Both bad and sad!
I think you're completely misunderstanding me here.
You know I was addressing Gonzos argument that Canada will be for the most part not affected maybe even benefit from the effects. So I am not sure what your point is here. That Gonzo is not the Oil industry or their rich elite? Since when have I made that argument? Human Trafficking and conflicts are also a completely different issues. And someone like Bolsonaro might actually even really believe what he says - I quote "I have a mission from god". He probably simply doesn't believe that climate change is even really happening and that it's all just a hoax. Take this conversation between Neil Tyson and Bob Lutz (siting next to Bill Maher) for example. I actually do think that Bob is completely convinced from his argument and not lying here:
And there are many CEOs, politicians and ordinary people that think like that. This is not about money this is about ideology. You're right when it comes to "Capitalism" for the lack of better words. But Capitalism has become a religion of sorts. An ideology. And this is the danger. If it was only about money we might have actually fixed the issue a long time ago I think because climate change will cost us billions in end.
But a global collapse of the ecosystem where 90% of the species disappear will affect everyone. There can be no doubt about this. Even people migrating to those promised lands in Siberia or what ever. There is literally no escape from this. There won't be rich people sitting in some underground bunker in the most remote lands of Canada or Russia sipping Mojitos and counting their money. Right now the effects of the climate change affect the poorest countries and inhabitants but it is not going to stay that way. If the crysis in Syria and the 800.000 Refugees in Europe have shown us one thing, massive movements of people can occur and have severe effects on the political landscape like the growing right wing populism. Now think about that Climate Migrants Might Reach One Billion by 2050.
- This is the possible future we're looking at. And there won't be a lot we can do to protect our self from it in the long run. And definitely not by moving to Siberia. As Hass said, this whole thing will be very ugly.