Guest essay by Eric Worrall
UK Climate experts have prepared a map of countries they think are most at risk of climate change. However their map could easily be mistaken for a geopolitical risk map – the most “endangered” countries are, with few exceptions, countries which are neutral to or even hostile to the USA and Western interests.
http://blog.theecoexperts.co.uk/climate-change-map
High on their risk are countries such as Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan, countries whose populations regularly express hostility towards the USA and Western values.
US allies such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada, and most of Europe score well on the risk map – they are listed as countries least likely to be severely impacted by climate change.
All of this poses an obvious question – if we accept the map at face value, why should we care about climate change?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Many here have wondered why x country (say Papua New Guinea) is more at risk than y (say Northern Australia) since they are very similar geographically, thereby dismissing the map as nonsense. Well, think about it. Richer countries with strong institutions would be able to cope much better with any kind of adverse event. Instead of looking at this as a map of climate risk, I look at it as one that shows the ability to cope with any kind of emergency, and as such it works pretty well. And it’s no accident that all our friends are countries at low risk, because they are also affluent democracies.
I wouldn’t dismiss the high-risk countries by effectively saying, like Eric, screw ’em, they are not our friends anyway. Failed states and countries at risk of humanitarian catastrophes have a way of biting us in the rear, with civil wars, famines, insurgencies and jihads. It’s good to know who they are.
So, the areas of the planet that will supposedly see the least actual change from climate change (the tropics) are the least equipped to deal with climate change; while the areas that will supposedly see the most change are well equiped to deal with it. Problem solved.
If this is so, why are the only places complaining about “extreme weather” and linking it to climate change in the green zones? Canada, the U.S., UK, Austrailia…
As TRM just pointed out, the only existential threat from climate would be a sudden end to the Holocene. One year, the snow never melts in Buffalo NY, next year snow storms in July in NY. THEN we will know we are in trouble.
it is only the news story that portrays extreme weather as serious. the reporters have other ideas.
it is because the news has turned into reality TV. They take a newscaster, stick them outside in a hurricane, and roll the cameras for a story on how extreme the weather is. Then they all step inside for a double latte espresso and a good laugh.
Another useless expenditure of money. It seems we see more and more of this type of fiscal waste. Apparently a group can brainstorm an idea that on the surface would sound good in a grant request but in reality just provides more bs.
An old saying was clearly meant for climatologists
BS – bullsh*t
MS – more of the same
PHD – pile it higher and deeper
TerryS and others,
As a practicing Catholic I do try to have compassion for all mankind.
What I refuse to accept is the Marxist corruption of my faith by institutions like Notra Dame, who published this drivel, and our supreme pontiff who apparently aquiests.
I would urge – even implore – any contributors on Anthony’s site to read -“http/planetshifter.com/node/1724” (without the quotes).
It is a frightening expose of the greatest scientific scam of all time.
The involvement of the Catholic church in this fraud is particularly gauling for me in my twilight years.
Please keep up the good fight for truth and the integrity of science.
WTF is Mongolia at risk of? and after all the scare of the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and all the droughts, flooding rains, flooding droughts, and whatever in Australia, it’s nice to see that these are two of the countries least at risk.
During the last glaciation the Gobi desert was 2-3 times its current size and encompased all of Mongolia. So it is in danger of climate change, just not the type the authors are thinking of. When (not if) our little inter-glacial is over it will slowly go back to being to dry for man nor beast to survive in.
How odd. For the most part,the “risk” of climate change appears inversely proportional to the per-capita energy usage. Maybe they’re on to something:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Energy-consumption-per-capita-2003.png
This is my first attempt at embedding a graphic. If above doesn’t work, try this link.
Exactly that.
Those countries with healthy established economies built on fossil fuel will survive.
This shows the Malthusian stupidity of trying to deny the poorer countries from developing their natural resources to catch up.
Something the West must watch for: the Risk of Climate Change increases exponentially if a country allows newspapers to publish cartoons about Mohammed.
I think the risk of your hat size changing is more likely. 🙂
And we will subsidize the slash and burn CO2 emitters in the rain forests so CO2 will continue to rise for sure.
While it is part of it there is no way to match the roll out of one coal burning plant a week by China for CO2 output. My plants and plants everywhere would like to say thanks to China but could you burn the coal cleanly so all the real pollutants are removed? Just CO2 is all the plants want.
The risk portrayed in this map is poorly represented by colour.
What it actually shows is the hoped for and predicted redistribution of wealth (green) from the developed fossil fuel using country’s with electricity networks to those with bugger all power networks and very little development (red).
Is it a coincidence that most of the “safe” countries are also the most industrialized?
Related: I wonder what rgbatduke thinks about the new “call to prayer” policy on his campus…
I thought Global Warming was melting the Greenland glaciers. That would certainly be a change. How can Greenland be one the least at risk?
When they can grow barley in Greenland again, in sufficient quantities to feed livestock and make beer like the Vikings did one thousand years ago, then it will be a paradise once more. … at least for folks with a Medieval lifestyle who are currently liviing.
Yes I am sure the populations of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Afghanistan when they wake up, have as the last thing on their mind terrorism, civil war, drones from the United States, crime, crumbling infrastructure, destroyed economies and violent death around every corner. I mean their real concern is the climate changing. If a drone is sending missiles into your neighborhood, or a warlord decapitates a member of your family, what you really need to know is whether combined land and sea surface temperature has gone up 1 hundredths of a degree or 3 hundredths of a degree since 2007.
Certified GWA. Global Warming Absurdium.
Looks like a map of third world countries and various other basket cases. As someone else pointed out, these would be “at risk” if the weather remained the same.
The earth has experienced constant climate change for over four billion years and it will continue to experience climate change for the next four billion years. In poor countries as well as rich ones. Anyone who believes they have the power to control climate by limiting atmospheric plant food, thereby impoverishing us all, and that we should waste trillions trying is not only crazy but inhuman.
The may hate the USA but they sure do love our greenbacks…..
The real question is, when will Al Gore buy a condo in Greenland, Scandinavia, or Australia?
Actually given the prevalent left leaning politics of alarmists I’m surprised that countries that are the most Marxist and hostile to western values don’t have greatest chance of survival. That Cuba for example isn’t being propped up as a paragon of climate virture is stunning.
Let me guess the green countries are supposed to give money to the red countries.
Interesting how the countries most at risk are also the largest emitters of CO2.
http://M4GW.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/CO2MAP.jpg
Hmmm ….. I wonder if some of those ocean CO2 plumes are the last remnants of Atlantis? And they’re not on the risk map because they’re already gone? The first victims of CAGW! 😎
Yeah, the countries in red and orange, are those that the Europeans have yet to rule…. completely! Then it will go to green. When a totalitarian socialist rule is introduced under the guise of democracy then it will be o.k
I’m feeling guilty for “Climate Privilege!!”
This looks like a map of GDP per capita, standard of living, HDI or some other measure of prosperity. The climate risk must have been a tiny little factor in the risk evaluation. Look at sub-Sahara Africa where the climate is almost identical climate, nevertheless business-friendly and prospering Botswana is the only green spot inbetween all the ailing countries with identical climate but leftist governments.
So the correlation between foes/allies with high/low risk is no coincidence.
The losers have always blamed the US for their misery.
The correct inference from this map is that to be safe from climate change you must develop your economy.
How else could the Malaysian part of Borneo be different from the Indonesian section ?
In sub saharan Africa the safest places to be are those with developed economies like South Africa and Botswana.
You dont need a PhD to know poor people are less able to cope with disasters than their richer counterparts.
Precisely Keith Willshaw. Industrialization and globalization are the two most powerful factors in lifting people out of poverty. Chris Patten analyzes this at length in his book ‘What Next?’