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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (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.