SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
TheEcoExperts report
So, which country is the most likely to survive climate change?
The answer is Norway, thanks to its low vulnerability score and high readiness score. The nation's Nordic neighbours also fared well, with Finland (3rd), Sweden (4th), Denmark (6th), and Iceland (8th) landing 5 out of the 10 top spots for survivability. So we should all flee to the countries of northern Europe and the north Atlantic to live out our final days should our planet become uninhabitable.
Interestingly the UK and US did not make the top 10, ranking 12th and 15th respectively. Both these nations were named amongst the 10 countries most likely to survive climate change in our 2015 version of this map, but an overall worsening of their vulnerability and readiness scores led to this slip in rank.
Even more surprising is China's position in the ranking--59th. Despite arguably being the world's biggest contributor towards climate change--emitting a massive 9,040 metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year--the country is somewhat sensitive to the effects of a warming planet. This is largely due to the nation's growing population which is putting a strain on China's natural resources and public services. Rather ironically, China's vulnerability to climate change therefore means that they may eventually reap what they sow.
...and who are the biggest losers?
At the other end of the scale, it comes as no surprise that the world's poorest and least developed nations have the lowest chance of surviving climate change. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa fill the bottom 10 spaces for survivability, with Somalia being named the country least likely to survive climate change.
Chad, Eritrea, the Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of Congo also fared badly, owing to their unstable governance, poor infrastructure, lack of healthcare, and a scarcity of food and water.
These findings serve as a stark reminder of the need for wealthier, more established countries to support the world's most vulnerable nations. This is particularly true given that many of the world's richest economies contribute the most to climate change but are in fact the least likely to be affected by it.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by requerdanos on Friday February 16 2018, @12:37AM (4 children)
I am really more interested in a question framed as "the population of which country is the most likely to survive climate change?" (even if they ultimately are talking about the same thing).
Not to mention that during my lifetime, it's been the coming ice age colder and colder with mass die-offs etc., and then the global warming ever hotter and hotter with mass die-offs etc., then they had a meeting or something and decided to just call it climate "change" to avoid saying whether temperatures were involved, and if so, which way they would trend.
The temperature trend seems to be upward as of late, but frantic predictions of the destruction of countries just makes folks less likely to listen to actual scientists (who work with data, not predictions of oceans drying up and mass hysteria) when something's up.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @02:41AM
during my lifetime, it's been the coming ice age colder and colder with mass die-offs etc
...if you've had sources that are total shit.
[1] Also requires cookies. (Not working for me.) [archive.li]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:50AM (2 children)
The temperature trend seems to be upward
No shit? [explainxkcd.com]
...and note that climate change has never occurred at the current rate.
makes folks less likely to listen to actual scientists
As mentioned in my previous comment, do listen to the actual scientists and stop getting your "information" from shit sources [imgur.com] (like George Will).
not predictions
Some folks have trained for a lifetime in order to be able to connect the dots and reach a logical conclusion:
Ice cores, Tree rings, Fossil leaves, Boreholes, Corals, Pollen grains, Dinoflagellate cysts, Lake and ocean sediments, Water isotopes
climate proxies [wikipedia.org]
...and while a tiny percentage among those in the discipline do sloppy work, we're blessed to have talented, cautious people who come behind that small group of slackers (see also "1970s" in my previous comment) and who find that slop and mark it as slop--even correcting the slop.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @09:52AM
This in itself says nothing though. I can imagine the Inquisition or other fundamentalists using similar phrasing to justify their actions.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Friday February 16 2018, @03:39PM
No question this is terrific advice--both parts of it.
The problem is, messages in the press like "some countries will survive the inescapable doom of climate change and others will fall into a pit of man-made destruction" presented as if that were a natural, normal thing (see TFS, TFA) are, on the nutty-nonsense scale, closer to the "omg-ice-age-coming" end and farther away from the "responsible-scientists-with-data" end.
EvenEspecially if their death and destruction predictions were made by "creative extrapolation" from actual data, in which case the alarmist predictions tend to tar the data with the same locobrush.The nutty-nonsense scale, as it were, conveniently measures how much people are likely to stop listening to data on a certain subject (even good, reliable data).
In this case, climate change alarmism is making climate change science seem less credible.
Many people who are fans of both climate change science (good) and climate change alarmism (very bad) are made uncomfortable by this factual observation. Tough on them.