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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @03:11AM (5 children)
Can you bring up an example of similar countries in terms of resources and lands that fare better? Cause from what I can tell, these are mono-cultured, single export countries that wouldn't be able to support themselves economically regardless of the quality or type of government they have as single political entities. They either have too much or too little in the way of lands or natural resources that are spread over the country in ways that can't be defended with an army.
e.g. Iran vs. Iraq is a good example: Iran has its oil and water sources fairly close together so the formed government could defend against foreign invasion and set the price for its oil. Iraq on the other hand could only burn its fields the first time around and get "liberated" the second time.
And those are the lucky ones. Cause those poor countries down the list here don't even have fields worth burning. They have large expanses of forests or strip mines that can only be exported using large ships from key ports. So they barely manage to defend their work crews as some local warlord rises to genocide and take over until his own work crews suffer a similar fate from a neighboring nation / growing minority. And if they actually manage to form a unified government that attempts to develop some industrial processing for their raws, the Americans bomb their factories as "chemical weapons plants" unless they let American/European companies lease the land and take home the profits. So, they end up taking a slightly better deal from the Chinese that still doesn't come anywhere near viable since it's either that, or a "international counter-terrorism" operation.
So, the people in power who make the decision are either corrupt for selling the interests of their citizens and nations to foreigners, or terrorists and tyrants for running a junta that doesn't take part in the world trade and tries to shut off their nation. Btw, numerically speaking I can't even tell which one is worse for the people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 16 2018, @05:36AM (4 children)
Norway.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday February 16 2018, @10:24AM (3 children)
They are not similar. Norway bears no resemblance to DRC.
For a start, the DRC was way better music and less ice.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 16 2018, @02:20PM (2 children)
That was the whole point of bringing up Norway. The AC wanted a country that was a "mono-cultured, single export" country. Norway is heavily specialized in oil production and hydrothermal power and unlike the Congo, an actual monoculture.
Or perhaps I should speak of Taiwan and Japan? Again, near monoculture and specialized for a while in exporting low quality goods to the developed world.
They don't bear resemblance to the Congo either. But they are examples of what the AC wanted.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @10:09PM (1 child)
But all your counter-examples have enough resource concentration for defensibly or special circumstances. Norway is tiny and only needs to defends a couple of oil rigs using two or three ports to satisfy its needs. Taiwan is a proxy state for international (i.e. US) trade interests and the different neighboring nations actually prefer having it as a buffer zone. Japan has... Eh, fish? Seriously they're not single export as much as they're no export. Unless you bunch together all the tech they're developing by importing steal and building cars... But since trade and industry isn't won over through war (well, in so much as it's easier to just make your own then try and conquer someone's car factories...), even the Americans didn't see the point of sticking around for too long.
And it's not like you have to go to Africa or ME to find failed states despite decent governing standards. Finland and Ireland basically exist as huge economic scams and Soviet buffer zones (Ireland ideologically and Finland militarily) despite having their leadership govern following the exact same practices as their successful neighbors. And don't forget the entire western economy has been spending this last decade on a low interest life support since all that "quality governing" run it to a debt our grand-children will still work to pay.
Really, the only nation with any sort of high-grounds to take is China and they have been heavily investing in Africa and the ME while taking the official position that western colonialism is to blame. Literally, it's on the Chinese African embessy's waiting room pamphlets...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:27AM
Wasn't a relevant condition as far as I recall.
Point was that for much of their rise, they were obsessively export-focused with export-oriented industries getting the lion's share of the resources, faring better, and being much more advanced than industries that weren't exported driven (autos versus construction).