International Northern countries will benefit from mild global warming. Russia, Canada, etc

[HIMBOB]

I wonder if Russia has been undermining world efforts to fight climate change because they stand to be the biggest beneficiaries of global warming.

Russia is a Paris signatory, USA not so much.

 

[NoDak]

Russia is a Paris signatory, USA not so much.

The United States actually hasn't withdrawn yet and can't until November 2020. Meanwhile, there's no country on the planet that contributes more in investment or produces a higher volume of quality research into earth and environmental sciences, but that's also true of the physical and biological fields.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

Trump colluded with Russia on climate change so they can profit off cabbage and turnips.

 

[tonni]

Trump colluded with Russia on climate change so they can profit off cabbage and turnips.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Canada proving once again it is the best country to live in the world.

Don't get too cocky. When it warms up more the heat will bring more insects. We have fuck tons of water everywhere. The whole country will be like manitoba.

We'll get eaten alive.

 

[Otto!]

Better not get too warm. I need my ice fishing fix.

 

[snakedafunky]

I don't want to sound any alarm bells.
But it does seem like a strange coincidence that Germany imports millions of African footsoldiers.
At the same time as the way to moscow warms up.

 

[YoungBoyd]

Denmark will greatly benefit because they own Greenland. That is till Murka brings the freedom and democracy and international banking to the Greenlanders.

Unheard of. The thieving lowland monkeys straight stole that shit from Norway.

 

[Clippy]

The perfect time to be a Canadian

View media item 29771
Actually I don't need that hat

 

[NoDak]

Unheard of. The thieving lowland monkeys straight stole that shit from Norway.

Norway has always been the little runt of Scandinavia and was passed around like a helpless baby in political unions for centuries, most recently to Sweden when Denmark had to give them up. And on top of that, they didn't even get 'independence' in the 20th century through some kind aggressive self-determination more common of the time period but basically a lot of crying and a referendum. This is basically my ancestral / family history. Denmark did sign over the rights to the Ekofisk oil field though.

(Drunken?) Per Hækkerup, PBUH.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

There’s no way Canada could be self reliant.

How's that?

 

[MikeMcMann]

Ya Canada might have the most to gain when looking at current land mass and claims in the arctic.

It will be interesting to see how Canada manages the politics as we obviously cannot win a war V Russia, China or the US if they just choose to ignore our more substantiated claim, proclaim it in dispute and use force to enforce the claims which is the main way historically claims got settled. OK so both the UK and Argentina claim the Falkland Islands, well here is our destroyer that is bringing the paper work to establish our claim along with a heaping serving of missiles. So how do you read your claim now?

The natural defender of Canada's claim is the US, obviously. What benefits Canada (resources) benefits the US. But Canada could play friendly with any of those parties in terms of compromise for security agreement.

Denmark wont own shit. There will be an ArcticWar to decide the fate of trade routes once the caps melt enough.

There’s no way Canada could be self reliant.

people will starve to death before any mass movement. I cant see china or russia opening themselves up. Things would get bad. Africa would become a giant desert and southern india along with almost all of africa would become too hot to live in too hot to grow things mass desert.


Russia and canada have the most legitimate claims to most of the arctic. Russia´s claim of the basin is also legitimate. The americans though you can be sure are going to try super hard to try and convince canada to go against its own best interests in terms of range of extended claims. Canadians have valid claims to a larger share then what meets the eye.

they do only to an extent like the links talk about. I mean i guess it would be a while until massive amounts of land are lost to rising sea. They do take steps to lower emissions and have since the soviet days they know pollution is bad. But yes there are those including Putin who say the human toll is overstated.

I wonder to if Xi is same way and is only paying lip service to his ´fight´against it. The US i think had valid concerns when they said that so many powers are exempt from the same standards they have until a certain year.

 

[Ophydian]

How's that?

For many reasons, mainly a large portion of their land mass is tundra and low lying wet lands. My thought is there is a reason Louisiana wetlands aren’t used for agriculture so the same would apply for Canada. Also those low lying areas would be flooded given we are talking a major shift in temperature. Canada would also be subject to huge swings in Summer/Winter temperature making it difficult to grown fruits.

And with reduced sunlight in the fall to spring would give a small growing season

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

For many reasons, mainly a large portion of their land mass is tundra and low lying wet lands. My thought is there is a reason Louisiana wetlands aren’t used for agriculture so the same would apply for Canada. Also those low lying areas would be flooded given we are talking a major shift in temperature. Canada would also be subject to huge swings in Summer/Winter temperature making it difficult to grown fruits.

And with reduced sunlight in the fall to spring would give a small growing season

OK well you're hilariously wrong.

The majority of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are farmland, mostly grains and cattle. Quebec also contains a lot of farm land, more dairy though. BC too although they tend to farm more exotic stuff than the prairies.

We also have an almost limitless supply of lumber and one of, if not the best fresh water supplies of any country on earth.

Pair that with massive energy resources and you have an extremely self sufficient country. Our low population is more than provided for.

 

[TheGreatA]

I propose that the Southern peoples occupy the North, while the Northern people shall occupy the South.

Africa/South America might get hot as hell, but we managed it up here when it was cold as hell, I bet that we will manage it down there too.

 

[NoDak]

I propose that the Southern peoples occupy the North, while the Northern people shall occupy the South.

Africa/South America might get hot as hell, but we managed it up here when it was cold as hell, I bet that we will manage it down there too.

That's one hell of a hypothetical BIG science project. If the conditions weren't projected to be so hostile to life, it would be pretty interesting from an evolutionary perspective. We have the tools to keep tabs on precisely how it plays out genetically at a molecular level, although nobody would ever be able to really observe the overt physical changes in real time over the course of their life (for quite a long while, anyway).

 

[NoDak]

It will be interesting to see how Canada manages the politics as we...

You're Canadian?

 

[MikeMcMann]

You're Canadian?

Yup, eh.

 

[NoDak]

Yup, eh.

You, @Hunter Simpson and @Wet Blanket have explaining to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rsuing-devastating-policies-new-study-reveals

China, Russia and Canada’s current climate policies would drive the world above a catastrophic 5C of warming by the end of the century, according to a study that ranks the climate goals of different countries.

The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, assesses the relationship between each nation’s ambition to cut emissions and the temperature rise that would result if the world followed their example.

The aim of the paper is to inform climate negotiators as they begin a two-year process of ratcheting up climate commitments, which currently fall far short of the 1.5-to-2C goal set in France three years ago.

 

[Andy Capp]

You, @Hunter Simpson and @Wet Blanket have explaining to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...rsuing-devastating-policies-new-study-reveals

China, Russia and Canada’s current climate policies would drive the world above a catastrophic 5C of warming by the end of the century, according to a study that ranks the climate goals of different countries.

The study, published in the journal Nature Communications, assesses the relationship between each nation’s ambition to cut emissions and the temperature rise that would result if the world followed their example.

The aim of the paper is to inform climate negotiators as they begin a two-year process of ratcheting up climate commitments, which currently fall far short of the 1.5-to-2C goal set in France three years ago.

Simple answer is political and economic reality dictates a short-sighted approach. The majority want better environmental performance but don't want to sacrifice the prosperity that goes with it, sadly. Plus, support varies regionally. It's hard to obtain a national consensus.