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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @02:32AM (10 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Friday February 16 2018, @02:32AM (#638601) Journal
    And that's exactly what it is, the same old racist line recycled in more respectable clothing. Anti-colonialism seems to have come full circle, does it make you ask yourself "cui buono?"
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 16 2018, @03:10AM (9 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday February 16 2018, @03:10AM (#638620) Journal

    So what do you suggest? These are real people with real problems.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:53AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:53AM (#638648)

      Let them deal with their problems, and stop fucking things up trying to "help". Societies swing between stable and not - that's how it is. Quit interfering in the process and you'll see stabilization occur. Might some of those stable forms be distateful to westerners? Sure. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS AND LET THEM FIGURE IT OUT!

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @04:20AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @04:20AM (#638652)

        I think you're right. We need to stop meddling in the affairs of oil-rich nations. Many of them would be modern secular democracies if not for CIA/NSA intervention to protect big oil. We should also pursue forms of energy such as a wind and solar that will only run out when our local star dies.

        It's really win-win-win.

        In the USA at least, we need to stop voting D team R team. Neither of those political parties will go for isolationist military policy or putting serious effort into moving away from oil dependence. If we could vote in an entirely Libertarian and Green government, I feel we would finally be able to pull up our collective sleeves and truly make America great (again) by leading the world by example.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:57PM (#638783)

          I, for one, am voting for the Green party next time Canada has an election. The rest of the parties have failed too many times. Might as well give the greenies a kick at the can.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday February 16 2018, @03:56AM (4 children)

      by frojack (1554) on Friday February 16 2018, @03:56AM (#638649) Journal

      Global warming will happen so slowly that natural migration away from those un-survivable places will take care of the problem.

      Some will choose to stay just like some chose to stay in Syria as its own government disassembled the nation.
      Others will leave and be just as welcome as the Syrian refugees in the EU, and they will behave just as badly in their new host country as said refugees.

      There is no point in rich nations engaging in heroic efforts to save ares that will be too hot to farm, or cities too flooded to function.

      On the other hand, all those Northern nations quoted as not at risk, are lot so likely to fare so well in the soon to arrive ice age.
      https://astronomynow.com/2015/07/17/diminishing-solar-activity-may-bring-new-ice-age-by-2030/ [astronomynow.com]
      http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/02/08/solar-minimum-may-bring-50-years-of-global-cooling/ [climatedepot.com]
      https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming [nasa.gov]

      But then Norwegians are nice folks, and you could put all of them in Montana and still have room for the Alaskans.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Friday February 16 2018, @07:18AM (3 children)

        by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday February 16 2018, @07:18AM (#638730) Journal

        An AC said "Quit interfering in the process and you'll see stabilization occur" and you say "Global warming will happen so slowly..."

        While we shouldn't jump at shadows, your warm, fuzzy faith that all will magically turn out fine is disturbing. What reason do you have to suppose that global warming and sea level rise will be slow? Scientists think the end of the last ice age featured a gradual retreat of the North American ice sheet, but aren't sure. Gradualism was also the argument advanced to shoot down the idea that the failure of an ice dam and the resulting massive flooding from the abrupt draining of Glacial Lake Missoula are responsible for eastern Washington's current geography. The gradualists were spectacularly wrong.

        One hypothesis is that a meteor could have triggered an abrupt collapse of the North American ice sheet in just 3 years. In just 3 years time, Canada went for being almost entirely covered with ice to today's conditions. And, of course, the sea level rose 300 feet in that same 3 year period. I wouldn't count on having decades to do a leisurely migration.

        • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday February 16 2018, @06:30PM (2 children)

          by frojack (1554) on Friday February 16 2018, @06:30PM (#638924) Journal

          What reason do you have to suppose that global warming and sea level rise will be slow?

          Because it is not happening even though the dire predictions of the past assured us the we would have massive seashore flooding and submerged cities BY THIS DATE.

          Also, I posted links showing a massive reduction in solar output, from reliable sources.

          You didn't read a single one of those did you. Not one.

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:13PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:13PM (#638958)

            I did not see those and I would like to, can you please re-link?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:28PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @08:28PM (#639015)

            No mention of massive reduction, just a reduction. I like how you totally buy into the solar reduction in 2030-2050 as fact, but need to point out the failed predictions of old climate models. The changes are happening, thankfully they haven't been as rapid as the dire predictions.

            But whatever, this just lets you go on polluting the world while pretending everything will be just fine.

    • (Score: 2) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @04:23AM

      by Arik (4543) on Friday February 16 2018, @04:23AM (#638653) Journal
      "So what do you suggest? These are real people with real problems."

      To start with the last, I agree completely.

      Unfortunately I can't give you an easy solution. I doubt one exists, and I'm sure that the persistent urge to find one is a factor that's aggravated the problem.

      Not all problems have easy solutions. But I can give you a solid starting point if you want to have a positive result.

      That principle is to do no harm. Even if your intentions are good, when your interventions have invariably had bad results, a policy of non-intervention should be considered.

      If you can't solve the problem at least you can quit making it worse, and you can get out of the way. Maybe there's someone else that could solve the problem, were they allowed to do so.

      --
      If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?