Climate Change and Coming Wars (1 Viewer)

PolarBear

Major
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
6,706
Mass migrations and war: Dire climate scenario

Sat Feb 21, 6:57 PM EST

If we don't deal with climate change decisively, "what we're talking about then is extended world war," the eminent economist said.

His audience Saturday, small and elite, had been stranded here by bad weather and were talking climate. They couldn't do much about the one, but the other was squarely in their hands. And so, Lord Nicholas Stern was telling them, was the potential for mass migrations setting off mass conflict.

"Somehow we have to explain to people just how worrying that is," the British economic thinker said.

Stern, author of a major British government report detailing the cost of climate change, was one of a select group of two dozen — environment ministers, climate negotiators and experts from 16 nations — scheduled to fly to Antarctica to learn firsthand how global warming might melt its ice into the sea, raising ocean levels worldwide.

Their midnight flight was scrubbed on Friday and Saturday because of high winds on the southernmost continent, 3,000 miles from here. While waiting at their Cape Town hotel for the gusts to ease down south, chief sponsor Erik Solheim, Norway's environment minister, improvised with group exchanges over coffee and wine about the future of the planet.

"International diplomacy is all about personal relations," Solheim said. "The more people know each other, the less likely there will be misunderstandings."

Understandings will be vital in this "year of climate," as the world's nations and their negotiators count down toward a U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen in December, target date for concluding a grand new deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol — the 1997 agreement, expiring in 2012, to reduce carbon dioxide and other global-warming emissions by industrial nations.

Solheim drew together key players for the planned brief visit to Norway's Troll Research Station in East Antarctica.

Trying on polar outfits for size on Friday were China's chief climate negotiator Xie Zhenhua, veteran U.S. climate envoy Dan Reifsnyder, and environment ministers Hilary Benn of Britain and Carlos Minc Baumfeld of Brazil.

Later, at dinner, the heavyweights heard from smaller or poorer nations about the trials they face as warming disrupts climate, turns some regions drier, threatens food production in poor African nations.

Jose Endundo, environment minister of Congo, said he recently visited huge Lake Victoria in nearby Uganda, at 80,000 square kilometers (31,000 square miles) a vital source for the Nile River, and learned the lake level had dropped 3 meters (10 feet) in the past six years — a loss blamed in part on warmer temperatures and diminishing rains.

In the face of such threats, "the rich countries have to give us a helping hand," the African minister said.

But it was Stern, former chief World Bank economist, who on Saturday laid out a case to his stranded companions in sobering PowerPoint detail.

If the world's nations act responsibly, Stern said, they will achieve "zero-carbon" electricity production and zero-carbon road transport by 2050 — by replacing coal power plants with wind, solar or other energy sources that emit no carbon dioxide, and fossil fuel-burning vehicles with cars running on electric or other "clean" energy.

Then warming could be contained to a 2-degree-Celsius (3.4-degree-Fahrenheit) rise this century, he said.

But if negotiators falter, if emissions reductions are not made soon and deep, the severe climate shifts and sea-level rises projected by scientists would be "disastrous."

It would "transform where people can live," Stern said. "People would move on a massive scale. Hundreds of millions, probably billions of people would have to move if you talk about 4-, 5-, 6-degree increases" — 7 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit. And that would mean extended global conflict, "because there's no way the world can handle that kind of population move in the time period in which it would take place."

Melting ice, rising seas, dwindling lakes and war — the stranded ministers had a lot to consider. But many worried, too, that the current global economic crisis will keep governments from transforming carbon-dependent economies just now. For them, Stern offered a vision of working today on energy-efficient economies that would be more "sustainable" in the future.

"The unemployed builders of Europe should be insulating all the houses of Europe," he said.

After he spoke, Norwegian organizers announced that the forecast looked good for Stern and the rest to fly south on Sunday to further ponder the future while meeting with scientists in the forbidding vastness of Antarctica.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
 
The impression I get from this detailed report is that the people involved have all got their own agenda. The message seems to be " We are the only ones who can save the world. If you don't listen to us this will be your fate." A golden opportunity for a bit of empire building, with appropriate recompense of course.
 
The impression I get from this detailed report is that the people involved have all got their own agenda. The message seems to be " We are the only ones who can save the world. If you don't listen to us this will be your fate." A golden opportunity for a bit of empire building, with appropriate recompense of course.
And so it goes.:rolleyes:
 
The impression I get from this detailed report is that the people involved have all got their own agenda. The message seems to be " We are the only ones who can save the world. If you don't listen to us this will be your fate." A golden opportunity for a bit of empire building, with appropriate recompense of course.

The article sounded like the screenplay from Children of Men with its world of "fugees" and global meltdown.
 
As I've said before, I'm not sold on global warming, as climate changes match solar activity almost perfectly, but I still don't get the resistance to changing to cleaner forms of energy . . . whether or not the temperature increases relate to human activity, cleaner air and less reliance of middle eastern oil can only be a good thing for the United States and the rest of the free world as far as I see. What is the rationale for viewing this change as some sort of plot?
 
As I've said before, I'm not sold on global warming, as climate changes match solar activity almost perfectly, but I still don't get the resistance to changing to cleaner forms of energy . . . whether or not the temperature increases relate to human activity, cleaner air and less reliance of middle eastern oil can only be a good thing for the United States and the rest of the free world as far as I see. What is the rationale for viewing this change as some sort of plot?
Well Louis as I have said before, it depends on how you define clean. Modern coal plants are clean by every reasonable standard and we have more coal (as does Canada) than the Middle East ever had oil. This agenda is masked as an environmental imperative but really much more about reallocating value.;) When you stick your hand in someone's pocket (without asking permission) you can expect some resistance.
 
Well Louis as I have said before, it depends on how you define clean. Modern coal plants are clean by every reasonable standard and we have more coal (as does Canada) than the Middle East ever had oil. This agenda is masked as an environmental imperative but really much more about reallocating value.;) When you stick your hand in someone's pocket (without asking permission) you can expect some resistance.

Wind energy would, in theory, be the cleanest form of energy but what happens as energy is taken from the wind?

Lol, there's always cause and effect when ever you tap into a resource and begin using it on a large scale.

We just don't know. We dump so much stuff into our environment that just our foodchain and biodiversity is a concern to me.

I am not totally sold on man caused climate change neither but I'd sure like to see polution in all forms dramatically reduced.

But, then again, I like to watch Star Trek Next Generation. So, yeah....
 
As I've said before, I'm not sold on global warming, as climate changes match solar activity almost perfectly, but I still don't get the resistance to changing to cleaner forms of energy . . . whether or not the temperature increases relate to human activity, cleaner air and less reliance of middle eastern oil can only be a good thing for the United States and the rest of the free world as far as I see. What is the rationale for viewing this change as some sort of plot?

I think what the debate is about is "anthropogenic climate change" rather than "climate change" since there is clear evidence of the Earth's climate changing dramatically over the eons.

Based on what's going on at the poles it is pretty difficult to argue that the planet is not warming not to mention some of the unusual weather we have started to see. The mean temperature of the planet also appears to align very closely with the level of atmospheric CO2.

The thing that seems to make this warming phase unusual from previous warming/cooling phases is the rate of change. Past changes have been gradual and flora and fauna have had time to adapt. If the change happens too rapidly this will not be the case and there will be an extinction event. Some argue we are already in such an event considering the rate of species loss. Part of this is human competition for habitat as well so there are many factors conspiring against the biosphere of this world. Another difference between this warming phase and others is that human development is now so widespread that it impedes natures ability to adapt (i.e. flora and fauna migration).

My logic is this. If global temperature is linked to atmospheric CO2 and I believe the evidence does support this and CO2 levels are rising at unprecedented levels then does it make sense to add additional C02 even if this isn't the only source?

Louis touches on another salient point regarding reliance on foreign energy. Not changing away from non renewable fossil fuels will lead us reaching the various peak production limits which in turn will have dramatic consequences to the world economy. Whether or not you believe we have already reached peak production for such products as oil or if it is 10 or 20 years into the future does it make sense to just keep pretending there are no limits?

Personally I think we are going to see a series of boom and bust cycles as we get near peak production with prices rising with energy demand during boom times and prices dropping during bust times. Ironically the recent collapse in the price of oil means less money is invested in new sources and production capacity so the next time demand rises there is no additional capacity.
 
Well Louis as I have said before, it depends on how you define clean. Modern coal plants are clean by every reasonable standard and we have more coal (as does Canada) than the Middle East ever had oil. This agenda is masked as an environmental imperative but really much more about reallocating value.;) When you stick your hand in someone's pocket (without asking permission) you can expect some resistance.

I certainly see your point about sticking hands in peoples pockets, but since the Federal, State, and Local governments digest about 60% of my income, between income taxes, sales taxes, real estate taxes and school taxes, I figure having them use some of my funds to clean up the environment is okay.

As far as modern coal plants being clean, that's fine by me, as coal can be obtained locally. I want the free world to rely on its own energy sources, not oil from an unstable region like the middle east.
 
Wind energy would, in theory, be the cleanest form of energy but what happens as energy is taken from the wind?

Lol, there's always cause and effect when ever you tap into a resource and begin using it on a large scale.

We just don't know. We dump so much stuff into our environment that just our foodchain and biodiversity is a concern to me.

I am not totally sold on man caused climate change neither but I'd sure like to see pollution in all forms dramatically reduced.

But, then again, I like to watch Star Trek Next Generation. So, yeah....
Wind energy has its environmental effects as well, they are just different. Windmills are tough on migratory birds and aesthetic values, relatively noisy and very region specific. Even in the best of regions they cannot be relied upon as a total solution since the wind does not always blow when needed and some backup (fossil or nuclear) fueled supplement (generally a lot of it) is needed.:)

PS, I am a big STNG fan myself.:cool:
 
Comment - Oil being depleted -

According to the State of Oklahoma, they have tapped 14% of what's in the ground and that doesn't account for natural gas at this point as they don't know how much of that is there.

How do you not rely of forein oil? EXPLORE WHAT WE HAVE IN SHALE, etc.

I am not sold on global warming at all. I think changes and cycles naturally occur, I think habitat is lost due to population,etc. I think..I think, again all my own opinion, call me a cynic.

Point is, there is no true independent studies, they are all underlying agendas in some way or another.

Don't even get me started on taxes, being my business, I can't even rationally discuss the current situation or the proposed changes. For the first time in my life, I almost want to advocate 2 positions I never thought I would....flat taxation or civil disobedience.

My last post on these topics was deleted, I hope this passes the mustard.
 
A flat tax is a fine idea that sadly never was and likely never will be. It is contrary to the ever popular agenda of income redistribution through taxation.
 
Comment - Oil being depleted -

According to the State of Oklahoma, they have tapped 14% of what's in the ground and that doesn't account for natural gas at this point as they don't know how much of that is there.

How do you not rely of forein oil? EXPLORE WHAT WE HAVE IN SHALE, etc.


It's not about what's left. It's about how fast it can be produced. There is a big difference between poking a pipe into the ground and having oil spray out under several thousand PSI and trying to extract it from sand or shale.

When we start to go for crappy expensive sources like sand and shale that means all the easy to get at oil has already been tapped and is not able to meet demand.

Unless you believe in an abiotic source of oil it is finite non renewable resource. What forsight does it demonstrate to defer the inevitable need to transition to alternatives? If the transition is reactive instead of proactive it will be considerably more disruptive.
 
It's not about what's left. It's about how fast it can be produced. There is a big difference between poking a pipe into the ground and having oil spray out under several thousand PSI and trying to extract it from sand or shale.
....
Yes that is true, which is why we should be applying ourselves to refining that technology. The US and Canada have more BTUs of useable coal and shale than all the oil OPEC ever had. Yes it can be used cleanly.:) Wind is a tiny and disruptive part of the solution; solar is a long way off; hydrogen is still only promising and nuclear is forbidden fruit. So why shouldn't we be spending billions of pipe dreams.:rolleyes:
 
Yes that is true, which is why we should be applying ourselves to refining that technology. The US and Canada have more BTUs of useable coal and shale than all the oil OPEC ever had. Yes it can be used cleanly.:) Wind is a tiny and disruptive part of the solution; solar is a long way off; hydrogen is still only promising and nuclear is forbidden fruit. So why shouldn't we be spending billions of pipe dreams.:rolleyes:

I think the question has to be what are the real sources of renewable energy?
  • Solar
  • Hydro (another form of solar)
  • Wind (another form of solar)
  • Biomass (another form of solar)
  • Geothermal (residual heat from the Earth's formation)
  • Tides (angular momentum of the Earth/Moon system)

Hydrogen doesn't represent an energy source to me since it can't be readily collected from the environment without the input of energy from another source. Nuclear offers a stop gap source but supplies of Uranium are finite as well.

Hydrocarbons represent fossilized solar energy (former biomass). It can be looked at like a battery that charged over millions of years. We are draining that battery in an astonishingly short period.

The solution to our energy problems is really going to have to be a combination of things starting with efficiency and working towards harnessing the real renewable sources of energy. In the interim existing energy sources certainly have a role to play but I feel we need to focus our attention on weaning ourselves of their use and think long term rather than short term.

For me emerging technologies such as Flex-fuel and PHEV vehicles represent a step in the right direction.
 
I think the question has to be what are the real sources of renewable energy?
  • Solar
  • Hydro (another form of solar)
  • Wind (another form of solar)
  • Biomass (another form of solar)
  • Geothermal (residual heat from the Earth's formation)
  • Tides (angular momentum of the Earth/Moon system)
Hydrogen doesn't represent an energy source to me since it can't be readily collected from the environment without the input of energy from another source. Nuclear offers a stop gap source but supplies of Uranium are finite as well.

Hydrocarbons represent fossilized solar energy (former biomass). It can be looked at like a battery that charged over millions of years. We are draining that battery in an astonishingly short period.

The solution to our energy problems is really going to have to be a combination of things starting with efficiency and working towards harnessing the real renewable sources of energy. In the interim existing energy sources certainly have a role to play but I feel we need to focus our attention on weaning ourselves of their use and think long term rather than short term.

For me emerging technologies such as Flex-fuel and PHEV vehicles represent a step in the right direction.
All the so-called renewable energy sources have received much attention since 1978, the last so-called oil crisis. Solar has promise in the longer term, wind is simply not very effective since it requires readily available conventional fuel backup of the same capacity. Germany has about 15% wind and has very significant voltage regulation issues. Frankly even putting aside the other negative features of wind, 10% is probably a very optomistic limit. Biomass is just moving one use of the resource (food and shelter) to another and offers no real advantages over coal. Geothermal is fine but limited in availability and still only a small part of the solution. Tidal energy is quite effective but expensive and also limited by transmission constraints and location. Hydrogen may require energy for its production but that does not mean it is not a good long term solution, especially for vehicles. Actually, when the technology matures, it promises to be much more cost effective than wind or solar (yes cost does matter). Short to intermediate term, advanced recovery techniques and efficient use of our vast coal reserves makes great sense, whatever the current vogue of ignoring the practical.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top