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: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Friday February 16 2018, @12:22AM (3 children)
If you're rich or cold, you can handle a few extra degrees and losing some land, if you're overpopulated, low, poor, already hot, it's gonna suck.
news at 11.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @12:33AM
Thank you for your inquiry. The Community Corpse Cleanup Program (CCCP) was created to address the pressing issue of littering in our communities. The CCCP is proud to announce that its workers have cleaned up the corpses of over 3,000 utilized women in under two weeks. The CCCP would like to remind residents that these corpses belong in a landfill, and that dumping them in unauthorized locations is not only hazardous, but qualifies as littering. The most simple way for residents to discard these corpses is to place them in a garbage bin and sit the bin out in time for trash collection day. Thank you.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by richtopia on Friday February 16 2018, @01:16AM
I looked at the table itself. First, I am unsure which dataset the article is drawing from, as the vulnerability table actually lists Switzerland the highest in 2016, then Norway, Luxembourg, Germany, Australia, Canada, France, UK, Sweden, Finland...
I also am surprised by some of the nation ranks. I think the flooding penalties are not properly weighted. For example, the Bahamas is 49th on the list. In my non-expert opinion, the Bahamas probably should be one of the last nations on the list, because the nation literally will not exist with run-away global warming.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @02:58PM
So, if you're a rich country, you need to build a wall along your southern border.
To protect from sea level rise.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @12:30AM (18 children)
I would argue quite the opposite. These countries fare badly due to poor governance. Wealther, more established countries propping up the corrupt governments in question aggravates and extends the problem, it does not solve it.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 16 2018, @02:20AM (11 children)
I read that, and says to myself, "Huh! The old White Man's Burden, being thrown back in our faces!"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Friday February 16 2018, @02:32AM (10 children)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday February 16 2018, @03:10AM (9 children)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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
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?
(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).
(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.
(Score: 4, Touché) by tftp on Friday February 16 2018, @12:54AM (12 children)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday February 16 2018, @02:25AM (7 children)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Friday February 16 2018, @10:31AM (1 child)
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
Agreed, although not fully understood it seems the Nordics need to take some kind of large hit for the potentially happening.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday February 16 2018, @01:24AM (5 children)
Anyone using the stupid projection map that puts the equator way down from the middle, and makes Greenland nearly as big as Africa or South America, should never be taken seriously.
It doesn't matter how important your data is. Your map looks bad and you should feel bad.
That projection is an abomination.
oblig XKCD [xkcd.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @02:54AM (4 children)
Yeah, well.
Bucky Fuller -did- have another idea. [google.com]
(Be careful not to jab yourself on any of those pointy things.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Friday February 16 2018, @05:03AM (3 children)
If Columbus had relied on any such map, he would never have left Spain.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @06:32AM
I'd like to see him fold it up and stick it in his pocket.
...and some folks have problems with folding regular old roadmaps. Heh.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday February 16 2018, @10:00PM (1 child)
If Columbus had a real good map (that didn't show the unknown Americas), he would never have left home. The only reason that he tried when no one else did was due to erroneously believing the world was only 18000 miles around with a bigger Asia when most thought it was closer to 25000 miles and just way to far to sail to Asia with the current technology.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @10:20PM
There's speculation that he was sandbagging his financiers|crew.
If aristarchus was around, he'd have already noted that one of his buddies (a Greek, living in Egypt) had a very good estimate for the circumference of the Earth back about 230 BCE. [google.com]
By 1492, anyone with a proper education knew about that guy's calculation.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @01:24AM (6 children)
You know what I support? Contraception. The countries at the bottom of the list cannot support an average of 6 children per female [nigerianeye.com] and neither can we.
If the shithole countries took responsibility for themselves they wouldn't be shitholes would they? On what fucking planet are westerners supposed to be guilt tripped into taking responsibility for irresponsible Africans?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Entropy on Friday February 16 2018, @01:33AM (3 children)
Take responsibility for yourself? No way-it must be someone elses fault if you suck. https://godfatherpolitics.com/ive-got-15-kids-and-someones-gotta-pay-for-all-my-children/ [godfatherpolitics.com] .. Who is going to pay for her 15 children?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @02:03AM (1 child)
Clearly the solution there is marriage, even though divorce does in fact exist and the father of many of those children is in jail anyway. But, magically, having big daddy government recognize the relationship would fix everything. Here's my shitty cherry-picked social science studies which definitely demonstrate causation even though they don't. Now let me proceed to mock you for presenting cherry-picked garbage science studies of your own. The Bill O'Reilly school of thought sure is great.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @02:56AM
The Bill O'Reilly school of thought has two distinct advantages.
- It's simple! Whoever said that for every problem there is a simple, elegant, and wrong solution was a poopy-head!
- It causes more wars. Yeeehaw! I can expend all my pent-up sexual energy from following reactionary prohibitions against free love by blowing the heads off brown people! Yeeehaw!
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @03:06PM
Las Vegas has drive thru marriages.
It needs to also get drive thru divorces.
Then put all of the drive through marriage and divorce places on a giant loop. You can drive around until you find your favorite drive thru marriage place. Then continue around the circle until you find your favorite divorce place and pull into it. Then continue.
I'll have one marriage with a side order of 25 children please.
I suppose Las Vegas needs a drive through "mail order brides" type place, but without the delay of mail order delivery.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday February 16 2018, @02:53AM (1 child)
If girls go to school family planning will happen on its own
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday February 16 2018, @03:07PM
Going to school does not prevent one from becoming pregnant due to rape.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @01:52AM (1 child)
survival of the fittest. shithole countries need not apply.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @02:48AM
Looks like realDonaldTrump forgot to sign in again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @02:39AM
The deadzones are growing.
The pollution from plastic is growing as it further breaks down. Micro plastics entering the food chain at an alarming rate while also affecting the reefs.
And as the water warms jellyfish are loving it. Which I guess if they are more durable regarding pollution than fish and whales could be a good thing? If so I hope you like sponge bob food
If not enough life lives in the oceans to filter them then all higher organisms will pay heavily.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @06:59AM (4 children)
Someone skipped the word MILLION.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16 2018, @07:29AM
What do you expect from "experts"
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday February 16 2018, @03:53PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @01:23AM (1 child)
There are 1.10231131 tons (US) in a metric ton (tonne).
There are 0.00110231 kilotons (US) in a megaton (metric).
The other AC was partly right, someone left out the word billion after 9040. (or the prefix giga before tons).
Or to avoid all prefixes 9,040,000,000,000 tons of CO2.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 17 2018, @03:44AM
Oops. On the last line that should have been 9,040,000,000,000 kilograms of CO2, or 9,040,000,000 tons of CO2.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Reziac on Friday February 16 2018, @08:15AM
So I looked up this "The Eco-Experts" and turns out they're a government-grants middleman -- they help you suck money out of the government. Perhaps for useful causes like new windows and boilers, but the whole idea is to get those grants so their contractor partners can profit, and no doubt pay a suitable kickback; it's not for the public's benefit.
https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/window-quote-map [theecoexperts.co.uk]
One person on Another Forum cynically noted that "I also followed the affiliated link to the best US cities to escape climate change — Phoenix,AZ was on the list."
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.