Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday February 16 2018, @12:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the climate-refugees dept.

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.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Touché) by tftp on Friday February 16 2018, @12:54AM (12 children)

    by tftp (806) on Friday February 16 2018, @12:54AM (#638566) Homepage
    Some areas of the USA are vulnerable already, as anyone in CA and other southwest states will confirm. There is not enough water. As the temperature rises, the southern parts of the USA will be not comfortably green, as shown, but flaming red. At the same time most of the territory of Russia will become available for agriculture, as currently it's insanely cold there. There is plenty of water as well. By my calculations, northern countries - Canada, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia will greatly benefit from the warming, were one to occur. It's not a matter of survival - they will flourish.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Touché=2, Total=3
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 16 2018, @02:25AM (7 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 16 2018, @02:25AM (#638597) Journal

    I don't believe that California can blame climate change for their water situation. For decades, California has been using more water than any rational human can justify. If you are growing fruits, vegetables, cotton, and vines on land that is almost desert, you WILL run out of water. Global warming may accelerate that, but you're going to run out of water anyway. The American southwest was never a good place for intensive commercial farming.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by kramulous on Friday February 16 2018, @03:09AM

      by kramulous (255) on Friday February 16 2018, @03:09AM (#638618)

      100% agree. Here in some of the driest parts of Australia, we have have the largest farms of the most water thirsty crops; cotton. Pure madness.

      And the fights start for the rest of the eastern seaboard who end up with no water in the river system.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:34AM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:34AM (#638637)

      It’s almost as if you have never even looked at a map of central California, much less visited it.

      It’s not San Bernardino.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 16 2018, @03:43AM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 16 2018, @03:43AM (#638642) Journal

        Can you deny that the state of California uses far more than it's "fair share" of water? Or, are you denying that significant portions of California is a desert? Or, do you merely deny that much of California's agriculture is in desert or near desert land?

        It's not San Bernardino? Interesting - a lot of California is actually drier than San Bernardino. No matter how you cut it, California isn't Louisiana, amirite?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @11:58PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @11:58PM (#639525)

          a lot of California is actually drier than San Bernardino

          WRONG.
          All of San Berdoo County, [wikimedia.org] all of Kern County, and all of Inyo County, as well as parts of other counties, are in the Mojave Desert. [archive.is]

          The northwest tip of the Mojave (also the north tip of Inyo County) contains the majority of Death Valley.
          That's the only place in the state that is dryer than San Berdoo.

          -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:41AM (1 child)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 18 2018, @05:41AM (#639615) Journal

            Hmmm. No mention in my comment, or GP's comment of "county". The city of San Bernardino is less desert-like than all the rest of the county. Imagine that - they put their county seat in proximity to a couple of water sources.

            But, I did screw that up. As you have made obvious, the city is county seat to the a county in the Mojave.

            Travelers, such as myself, driving from Arizona into California, pass through all the rest of that "Inland Empire", which is definitely desert. When the city is reached, it is pretty obvious that you are finally leaving the desert - and in fact, is is only a short distance into LA.

            And, my original point remains. Much of California would be unable to support it's population, much less agriculture, without bringing water in from elsewhere.

            Today, California's water reservoirs have recoverd somewhat, some have completely recovered. However, the aquifers that have been drawn from for decades haven't recovered at all. It would take decades of above-average rainfall to the aquifers to even begin to recover.

            Maybe if California were to change it's agricultural practices, the state could maintain indefinitely. But, pumping millions of gallons of precious water out into the fields every season is unsustainable.
             

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:38AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 18 2018, @08:38AM (#639656)

              California's water reservoirs have [recovered] somewhat

              It rained a good part of the day a few days ago, first time in a long spell.
              We're still in drought.
              In SoCal, we're really bad about capturing rainfall.
              I've noted before that when it rains, almost all of that goes rushing out to the sea.
              More reservoirs would make a lot of sense.

              Family|neighborhood cisterns would be smart too.
              (Subsidies for installations? Might be cheaper than what we're doing now.)

              Snowpack is down in the mountains too.
              Wouldn't be surprised if the call for conservation is stepped up this summer.

              Years ago, I saw figures about how many people the Los Angeles Basin could sustain with the natural water supply.
              I don't remember the exact number now but it was A LOT less than 1 million.[1]
              ...never mind the current population.

              [1] ...and I imagine that that was based on folks eating nopales and other stuff that it makes sense to grow hereabouts.
              ...and not wasting water on stupid shit like grass lawns.

              The city of Fountain Valley treats black water to a potable state but then just uses it to water golf courses|parks.
              Before long, I can see us needing to get a lot less squeamish about what we drink (like astronauts).

              Where folks fought over petroleum last century, I can see water taking its place.

              -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

    • (Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Friday February 16 2018, @09:26PM

      by Hawkwind (3531) on Friday February 16 2018, @09:26PM (#639049)

      So frustratingly true. Cotton of all crops, and water being pumped out in to the deserts. Only positive is there's a lot of water CA can stop using.

  • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday February 16 2018, @04:54AM (1 child)

    by captain normal (2205) on Friday February 16 2018, @04:54AM (#638663)

    Why are you leaving out Chile, Argentina, New Zealand and many Southern Hemisphere locations?

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.
    • (Score: 1) by tftp on Friday February 16 2018, @06:08AM

      by tftp (806) on Friday February 16 2018, @06:08AM (#638701) Homepage
      They may be too close to equator. I don't have the map handy, but from what I recall NZ is subtropics. But Antarctica - yes, the glaciers will melt and maybe we'll see the land beneath. Fiction writers placed a lot of goodies there, starting with Shoggoths and ending with UFO bases. Much fun :-)
  • (Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday February 16 2018, @10:31AM (1 child)

    by Dr Spin (5239) on Friday February 16 2018, @10:31AM (#638767)

    If the ice melts, it will stop the gulf stream, and the UK will be about the same temperature as Moscow ie -40 in the winter.

    Most of the UK has a hard time with -2. I doubt moving to Norway is going to be my preferred option.

    --
    Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
    • (Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Friday February 16 2018, @09:30PM

      by Hawkwind (3531) on Friday February 16 2018, @09:30PM (#639054)

      Agreed, although not fully understood it seems the Nordics need to take some kind of large hit for the potentially happening.