Climate Change is Racist!

This image shows which nations have the greatest chance of surviving relatively unscathed by global climate change:

As you can see, Africa and South America (i.e. the brown/black people) will be the hardest hit by global climate change while North America and Europe (the white people) will remain minimally impacted by global climate change.

Because, y'know, there's no black/brown people in North America and Europe... :rolleyes:
 
I'm interested by China and Holland - it seems to me that both of those would be particularly hard-hit by rising sea levels.
 
I'm interested by China and Holland - it seems to me that both of those would be particularly hard-hit by rising sea levels.
According to the methodology behind those maps, it appears sea level rise is only weighted as 1/12 of overall climate change impact. And at best they will use the fairly conservative estimates of sea level rise in the last IPCC report, i.e. 1 to 3 feet this century.
Given the outstanding level of "preparedness" of Holland in regard of storm surges, I would expect it to get a fairly positive results in regard of threat/preparedness ratio of sea level rise.

In addition, I suspect the timescale they are using for this evaluation to be fairly "short" i.e. a most this century, probably less.
Obviously if you use longer timescales, sea level rise becomes a progressively bigger problem compared to the other impacts.
We have probably already locked in a sea level rise of 10-20 meters, which would most likely overcome any feasible coastal defenses.
 
It might be useful for governments in Africa to look at some of the nations in Asia that vaulted forward in economic wealth and mirror some of the tactics.

The problem is that African nations (save Botswana) cannot institutionally apply the principles of Asian polities. That would require a cultural shift. Notably Libya and Congo, though then again pretty much every African country, is dominated by tribal politics and the patronage that comes looking at it as well. This is not the case in Asian polities, where its populace is relatively accepting of a centralised authority.

Remember - and Hygro will say the same thing: All decisions undertaken by state including economic ones are ultimately political in nature. Bringing 10% GDP growth isn't guaranteed to keep you in power; Increasing the net worth of your political backers by 10% is.
 
To come in on TMIT's point, I think there's a danger in assuming that countries are masters of their own fate. We can all agree, I think, that economic success is some part policy and some part good luck - this is true whether you're talking about an individual, a company or a country. The danger in simply mirroring the tactics of those who succeeded in the past is that it's difficult to tell apart the actions were in fact positively helpful in making a person or a country richer and the actions which were either inconsequential or which had a hindering effect, albeit one which we couldn't see because luck or some other factor meant that they succeeded regardless. It all depends on how predictable you think the world economy is, and I think we should be erring on the side of 'not very'. If we do so, then we have to also conclude that even the best policy is likely to yield not particularly good results, and that copying those who have previously been successful is likely not to be the best policy.

There's an old cautionary tale about a millionaire who was seen standing pointing at the sky, and several people who decided to copy him, and all walked around pointing at the sky in the hope that it would make them rich. Eventually, 'Rich Men Point at the Sky' became a runaway success of a self-improvement book, and the original rich man was invited to be interviewed on television - at which point he admitted, somewhat bemusedly, that he had only been trying to point out a beautiful sunset.
 
Because, y'know, there's no black/brown people in North America and Europe... :rolleyes:

Methinks you took my post too seriously.

DISCLAIMER: None of my comments in this thread are to be taken with any degree of seriousness. I just saw this online and thought it humorous that the effects of global climate change seem to be divided along racial lines. I also found it humorous that the nations responsible for the most pollution seem to be the ones least likely to suffer serious consequences for producing that pollution.
 
Back
Top Bottom