Sometimes it is helpful to think through the outcomes of change, even if it might seem initially difficult.
We’ve already considered petroleum companies in view of the “keep it in the ground movement”, and private vehicles in view of the sharing economy.
With the climate change of global warming, what changes might we expect?
It has already been postulated that many people living in low lands adjoining oceans are at risk upon sea levels rising. This is not hard to understand.
Some islands will disappear, there will be flooding in low-lying areas and destruction of coastline habitats are all to be expected.
The human toll will be enormous if projections are true. Here are some of the larger cities and populations that will need to adjust (ie, move somewhere else) because of rising sea levels:
| Osaka, Japan | 5.2 million |
| Hong Kong, China | 8.4 million |
| Shanghai, China | 17.5 million |
| Rio de Janeiro, Brazil | 1.8 million |
| Miami, Florida, USA | 2.7 million |
| The Hague, Netherlands | 2.5 million |
| Alexandria, Egypt | 3.0 million |
Plus many more smaller locations. So where will these people all go?
Agricultural Dimension
When the climate warms, which animals and crops can grow will change. What could grow or live in a region may no longer thrive there. Already we are hearing of acquatic life migrating north.
So normally fertile land in temperate areas may start to accommodate more tropical plants, for example. Or northern lands previously out of reach of farming may soon become available for cultivation.
Seek Higher Ground
There are two potential reactions. One approach is to protect an area from the sea, such as in Dutch style of dikes, levees, pumps, and canals. It is of interest to review some Dutch history on this subject.
Or Move
The second way is to relocate.
Various countries have elevated geography. The U.S., China, India, Brazil, and so on, all have mountainous areas. Whether people will relocate in the face of high sea levels is an open question.
So it occurs to me to consider where people may want to immigrate to.
A primary consideration: Canada.
Why Canada?
Canada has many advantages. Has mountains, is English speaking, and it is a Northern country.
Mountains means that there are places to live that are not inundated by rising sea levels. English speaking makes it easier for speakers of English from other countries. And it being a Northern country, increased temperatures means that it is possible there will be some positive agricultural changes. Normally temperate-weather crops may in the future be sustainable in a such a northern locale.
Unhappily, some animals that do best in cold weather may not survive. See some recent news reports about certain types of polar bears.
A second look: The U.S. and Alaska
The “lower 48 states” of the U.S. include mountainous areas, so there will no lack of opportunities for internal migration. However, it remains to be seen how further climate changes will affect the domestic political situation. I am not currently optimistic about a cohesive and intelligent response.
As part of the U.S., Alaska has the similar advantages of being mountainous, English-speaking, and a Northern location. However as part of the U.S., it has similar political conflicts. It is too early to say how much climate change denial will persist in the U.S.
Some other considerations: Norway, Sweden, and Finland. These countries all have Northern exposures and mountains. Russia has vast opportunities in this regard, but politically may not be attractive to many others.
Greenland is mostly covered in an ice sheet, although we don’t know what the effect of global warming will be. Currently only 6% of Greenland is arable. Here’s an depressingly interesting fact: “A complete loss of ice on Greenland would cause a sea level rise of as much as 6.40 meters (21.0 ft).”
Asia
India and China and many in central Euro-Asia have mountain areas and/or are far from oceans. Maybe all those vast empty cities being built in China are being built for a reason.
Overall
Politics of all kinds (domestic and international) will play a significant role in how all countries respond. Accommodating several million people on the move does not sound like a simple task. Consider that all of these people have lost their homes, their possessions and their livelihoods, and we can see a volatile situation.
I would think that when and if global warming/climate change accelerates, there will be pressure on many countries to change their immigration laws, accompanied by unfailing push-back from those opposed to changes. So we will see further political fallout from climate change ahead.
Planning
So how to plan for this? For those looking ahead one or two generations, I would think there should be two foci (focuses). One is skills, the other is location.
Skills to survive include the ability to grow one’s own food, and grow in less than hospitable terrain. Different geographies support different kinds of food crops and livestock.
Location obviously should take into account the loss of low lying land to sea level rise. Migration, anyone?
Financial considerations
Trying to pick financial winners and losers as a result of climate change seems a far stretch.
Nations that resiliently respond will prosper, those that politicize reality will lose.
Potential for investment: elevated agricultural land in Canada.
Companies
Perhaps some companies will thrive. A location that determines it best to try to mitigate the results of rising sea levels will by definition choose winners by determining how to respond. For example, building earthworks, dikes, levees, and pumps all takes infrastructure. Whoever supplies that infrastructure will benefit.
Agricultural suppliers will prosper only to the extent they change with the changing environment. I would surmise that consumers will be faced with new agricultural choices, as some currently-common produce items will become scarce with climate change, other now-rare produce items will become widely available, mirroring changing environments.
How do you expect to respond to this new world? Send your comments via the Contact page.
“Maiko Beach in Harima Province,” 1853, was painted by Japanese artist Utagawa Hiroshige (1797–1858), considered the last great master of the ukiyo-e genre (“pictures of the floating world”).
The “Parrot of Paradise” (1754) is from “Birds from The Natural History of Carolina, Florida, and the Bahama Islands”, by Mark Catesby and George Edwards.
“Bamboo and Cymbidiums” (20th century) is by Soong Mei-ling. Stanford University.
The post Preparing For Climate Change and Global Warming appeared first in Smile If You Dare.