SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Located between Hawaii and Australia, the Marshall Islands are made up of 29 atolls and five islands with a population of about 70,000, all of whom live about six feet above sea level. Now Story Hinkley writes in The Christian Science Monitor that another 10,000 Marshallese have moved to Springdale, Arkansas because of climate change.
Because this Pacific island nation is so small, the Marshallese population in Arkansas attribute their Springdale settlement to one man, John Moody, who moved to the US in 1979 after the first wave of flooding. Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas, eventually causing a steady flow of extended friends and family migrating to Springdale. "Probably in 10 to 20 years from now, we're all going to move," says Roselinta Keimbar adding that she likes Arkansas because it is far away from the ocean, meaning it is safe.
For more than three decades, Marshallese have moved in the thousands to the landlocked Ozark Mountains for better education, jobs and health care, thanks to an agreement that lets them live and work in the US.. This historical connection makes it an obvious destination for those facing a new threat: global warming. Marshallese Foreign Minister Tony de Brum says even a small rise in global temperatures would spell the demise of his country.
While many world leaders in Paris want to curb emissions enough to cap Earth's warming at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), de Brum is pushing for a target that's 25 percent lower. "The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us," says de Brum. "We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual." Meanwhile residents jokingly call their new home "Springdale Atoll," and there's even a Marshallese consulate in Springdale, the only one on the mainland US. "Its not our fault that the tide is getting higher," says Carlon Zedkaia. "Just somebody else in this world that wants to get rich."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Tuesday December 01 2015, @10:47PM
I didn't mean to imply that all revolutions are driven off of famine, just that it's a common catalyst. There has to be pre-existing problems of some other kind too, it's just... hard to risk your life for justice when you've got a good home and are well fed, maybe?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday December 01 2015, @10:57PM
Eh "climate" is a very noisy signal, the point of "climate change" is that very noisy signal has a small almost unmeasurable upward slope. You'd have had the revolution next growing season or something. On a very large long term basis I do agree that Fed up climate would lead to revolutions on long term average across many of them, happening earlier.
The main reason I'm a Mann stage 5 denialist (see wikipedia, etc) is I see no reason to expect the .gov to do anything but make "it" worse for everyone. So we're all best off if Cthulhu doesn't notice us at all. Or rephrased when the .gov says they're here to help you know they're going to F things up worse than if they left it alone.
Besides, this stage of our civilization is almost over. Sort of anti-cornucopian outlook. Its not like Texas is going to magically spring rivers of crude, S.A. is about pumped out, its almost over even if we do nothing at all.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 01 2015, @11:30PM
> Eh "climate" is a very noisy signal, the point of "climate change" is that very noisy signal has a small almost unmeasurable upward slope.
False characterization that reveals your particular method of self-deception.
present trends in greenhouse-gas and aerosol emissions are now moving the Earth system into a regime in terms of multi-decadal rates of change that are unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years. The rate of global-mean temperature increase in the CMIP5 (ref. 3) archive over 40-year periods increases to 0.25 ± 0.05 °C (1σ) per decade by 2020, an average greater than peak rates of change during the previous one to two millennia.
Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change [nature.com]
> The main reason I'm a Mann stage 5 denialist (see wikipedia, etc)
You joined a club. How cute.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:38AM
the reason why 'global warming' was re-badged as 'climate change' is because your theory has already been debunked over and over and over and over.....
when the next ice age hits us, maybe then you'll wake up
or probably not... stupid people are stupid
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:28PM
the reason why 'global warming' was re-badged as 'climate change' is because your theory has already been debunked over and over and over and over.....
Shows how little you know. The reason it was "rebadged" is because a republican spin doctor thought "climate change" was less scary sounding. [theguardian.com] Since then, that very spin doctor has become convinced that global warming is real and that the republican party is grievously wrong on the issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @09:36PM
We are in an Ice Age now you "stupid", one that has been going on for 2.6 million years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age [wikipedia.org]
To have Polar Ice Caps melt on Antarctica, while the continent is isolated on the South Pole, and in the North while the Arctic Ocean is mostly landlocked would be disastrous and unprecedented. These glaciers should remain in place until our continents drift and change the geography of the planet such that the currents can more easily flow between Equator and the Poles. If they are melting now, it's not natural. We are causing something which wouldn't happen for another million years to occur.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 02 2015, @02:50AM
there's like 150 years(at current usage rates) of coal in the ground, dude. That's not some triviality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @08:03AM
So the factoids are:
(1) in 150 years you have to have switched to sustainable energy ANYWAY
(2) 150 years of coal pumped into the air is very bad for global warming, and pollution in general
conclusion:
(3) switch now already.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:41PM
Gotta check the geology and read both the geological reports and financial reports with a very close eye.
For example there's a classic USGS report about the powder river basin from 2013 which has over 1000 BST of coal in the ground. However using 2013 technology as understood by the USGS at that time only about 170 BST are recoverable using the best 2013 technology assuming a stable 2013 economy to support it (fuel, drilling equipment, stuff like that not being a limiter), the rest is in veins that are too small, contaminated, deep (mostly too deep, from memory PRB is deep as hell and existing tech doesn't "understand" how to mine vertical veins as well as horiz), too-whatever, to dig out, no matter what the price. Emphasis, no matter what the price. Then the USGS claims at a 2013 economic level, only 25 BST are financially viable, where a profit could be run (depending on spot price of course)
Now as a very crude engineering / economic estimate the USA "always" mines about 1 BST of coal per year. Yeah don't BS me about how in the depths of the recession we only mined 980 million or whatever or it was 1.2 BST at the bubble peak or WTF it was. To one sig fig we mine one BST of coal per year.
So.... IF the powder river basin was our only source (its actually about half our production), we'd mine it out around 2040. However, thats assuming the financial markets and economic system are are "healthy" and stable in 2040 as they are today. Somehow we'd have as much or more oil being pumped to run the rest of the economy to supply the workers with food and diesel to run the compressors and run the trains. I'm not seeing that level of economic, financial, or political stability going forward. Still I'll be irrationally optimistic and assume we can mine will 2050.
Now what you're probably reading is not USGS reports and financial statement but PR puff pieces. Whats more likely to be accurate?
Sure, if theres another gold rush or ten more financial bubbles or WTF maybe an extra fraction of that 170 BST could be mined. That sounds unlikely. Or space aliens could land and the Vulcans could sneak us transporter technology and we could transport individual nuggets, atoms, of coal out to claim all 1070 BST the USGS thinks are there. Yeah, sure. I think you'd have better odds relying on prayer for financial planning than that analysis. So back to planet earth we got 40 years of coal left at PRB.
Economic recoverability in 2013 doesn't matter when conditions change in 2023, for example. So S.A. collapses and coal mining goes post petroleum because whatever petroleum we can get needs to go to the chemical factories and related farms. That doesn't mean mining stops, it merely means no more fast diesel trains or diesel generators or diesel air compressors or diesel trucks shipping parts and machines. All that stuff that saved fat stacks of cash. So what was 25 BST using 2013 tech and 2013 economy becomes only maybe 20 BST recoverable... Say in 2020 the higher ed bubble dies its well deserved death, and for a decade we get no new domestic engineers, or few enough not to matter. Well that means for a decade, maybe for decades if they F stuff up, we won't have 170 BST technologically recoverable, but only 150 BST due to permanent mistakes in the field. Or by needing two idiots to do one engineers job, they'll lose a BST or so of economically recoverable coal.
Note that USGS has a historical reputation in the field for being optimistic in outlook. Not ridiculously so, but lets just say the number of times their estimates need adjusting down far exceeds historical underestimates, and the longer term the bigger the smiley face they put on reports. So the real truth of whats likely economically recoverable in the powder river basin is likely a hell of a lot closer to 20 BST as of 2013. I'd be surprised if the mines are operating over 10% capacity in 2040. Surprised, not totally shocked, but surprised.
I could write for pages and pages on this topic; I've studied and invested for years. One important issue not discussed yet is PRB is half our nations yearly supply and is in the ass end of the ass end of nowhere (nothing personal WRT the locals), and the railroads for decades have bitched and moaned to upgrade because the mines are all closing in 30 years and theres no other demand blah blah blah, so "muh depreciation" and who's going to finance it and all that. None the less cost of coal at the mine mouth has been around five bucks and transport has steadily dropped from twenty or so bucks per ton (no shit serious) to only a couple bucks. Still you sometimes get people claiming the financial capital market that supplies diesel locomotives don't matter, and the price of diesel doesn't matter. Well, half the coal mined this year came from burning enormous amounts of diesel between there and here, and those mines are empty in less than 40 years under the most ideal conditions. Only the most superficial people who know nothing about the industry make claims like once the middle east blows up we'll just burn coal. Um, no, we won't. Not unless someone invents the star trek transporter first.
There are also cascading effects. OK so PRB is going away before 2050 even under the best possible scenario and taking half the nations coal production with it. OK well that means we will keep mining elsewhere, right? Wrong. How will I ship embedded microcontrollers to the mine to run the mining drones if the electrical power is off half the time? My CNC machines don't run on organically grown soy oil. The ghetto will burn when the lights permanently go out, what will that do to the skyscrapers and universities next door? There are cascading effects. My employees are dead, BLM torched my factory, we have no diesel to get raw materials shipped in, and no diesel to ship mining equipment parts to the coal mine. So no PRB coal means no legacy Appalachia coal or whatever other source either.
So go ahead, try to convince me the coal industry will be unchanged in 60 years, LOL, much less that 150 year popular science article BS.
I'm old enough that I might be dead before coal is done. Kids these days will see the last coal power plant shut down, one way or the other. Coal is just done. All the Time magazine BS press releases about 200 years of coal mean very little when mashed up against reality.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:38PM
According to the US Energy Information Administration there are coal reserves in the US totaling 480 billion short tons. Of those, 256 billion short tons are recoverable. [eia.gov]
Finding consumption rates are a bit harder but this site indicates that the US burns 1.06 billion short tons per year. [nationmaster.com]
The 1.06 is a bit outdated but at that rate we have 241 years worth of coal in the ground. The US is reducing coal consumption but you can increase that 1.06 number quite a bit before you get to 150 years.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday December 02 2015, @06:04PM
Yes exactly, the ACR is not a USGS publication but they basically do the same job with a somewhat different axe to grind and get the same result, as table 15 of the ACR itself states "This estimate does not include any specific economic feasibility criteria". Sure we got plenty of coal underground, as long as you don't have to make a financial profit digging it up or in some cases an energy profit in the labor to unearth it.
Now if you insist on making a financial profit, well, that's back to ACR table 14, which paraphrases "what can be dug out of the ground at existing mines while realistically earning a profit" which is about 19 years worth as of 2013.
A look at the business and financial side here:
http://www.chadbourne.com/Coal_Industry_Emerging_Issues_Bankruptcy_Cases_projectfinance [chadbourne.com]
Given the wave of coal miner bankruptcies its hard not to see the difference between "there is coal under ground here" "there is coal that could be dug up here" "there is coal that can be profitably dug up here". And the latter is by far the smallest category. Yes there are a staggering huge number of carbon atoms below ground, mostly useless.
Something to think about WRT mountaintop removal etc is they're not necessarily evil people, or get excited by screwing over rural residents (although probably some do). Overall the industry is dying.
Next release of the ACR is a week before Christmas, it'll be interesting to see how the stats vary.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Wednesday December 02 2015, @01:39AM
Which is why if you moved half of the poor population from the South to the Middle East, you would have Southern terrorists instead almost immediately, and certainly within a generation. I've come to the same conclusion myself about the standard of living being key to terrorism.
We wasted nearly a trillion dollars attacking a bunch of people that were mostly intangible and ghost-like. The trillions went into private pockets of people most likely far more scary and indirectly sociopathic than any ISIS member decapitating people. What wasn't intangible and ghost-like? The Middle Eastern economies.
If we spent our trillion bringing hard infrastructure (transport), schools (beginning of an advanced economy), agriculture (the food), irrigation and water projects (the water), and environmentally friendly housing (shelter) you would have most likely millions of Middle Eastern men unwilling to be recruited by ISIS since they would have our situation here.
It never ceases to amaze me. We learned nothing from the ending of World War I and the Treaty of Versailles. It makes more sense to waste a trillion dollars in war, then it does to use a trillion dollars in the creation of entire country. You know, because a solid country with an even an average economy is far less likely to produce and promote terrorists. We can't see that it makes more sense to bring them up to the modern world with us instead of trade embargoes, sanctions, and a metric shitload of military ordnance.
Our egoistic calls for aggression and violence have led us down paths that had no hope for success beyond complete genocide of a people. Real peace comes from prosperity, not idealism. That's the point you made, and I agree with it. It's more efficient to battle ISIS via economies and huge public works projects than with drones and missiles. Nearly impossible to sell that to the American people though, and I doubt the French would listen at the moment either with all of the calls for revenge and justice.
Ten thousand bombs will only incite ISIS and help them recruit. Ten thousand McDonald's fast food restaurants (and equivalents), and a people that can afford it, will actually hurt ISIS' ability to operate effectively. The tangential benefits of putting the fast food restaurants there are wonderful too. If want to see what rebuilding a country can do, just go back to World War II and look at Germany and Japan. Even more for our dollar, including a ton of good will for all those acts of creation.
War? What is it good for? Absolutely nothin.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by Linatux on Wednesday December 02 2015, @03:17AM
I don't believe history shows terrorism being spawned by droughts or harsh economic conditions - really closer to the opposite.
It might be a last straw for some, but it really is just a straw. There are many other much more important factors in play. I'm sure Bernie knows better
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:29AM
> I don't believe history shows terrorism being spawned by droughts or harsh economic conditions - really closer to the opposite.
Really? You can't just leave us hanging like that. Or is this one of those cases of "I believe it so it must be true, don't bother me with logic or evidence."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:55AM
Other factors like the Gini index? [wikipedia.org]
If the 1% has more then half of everything, and the country becomes poor, they'll be swinging from the lampposts in no time at all. Gated communities or not.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday December 02 2015, @07:18PM
Other factors like the Gini index?
Would that not be covered by "harsh economic conditions"?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday December 02 2015, @05:20PM
Ten thousand McDonald's fast food restaurants (and equivalents), and a people that can afford it, will actually hurt ISIS' ability to operate effectively.
And for the revenge types, just think of all the diabetes that will lead to!