# Good News About Global Warming? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 19, 2001, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-news-about-global-warming/62487 "2001-04-19T03:06:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2001, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-news-about-global-warming/62487/1 "2001-04-19T03:06:27Z")
Is there any? I was reading in Popular Science and the article seemmed to point out only negative stuff. Like Polar Bears dying off as there will be no ice floats for them to suprise seals from. But what about places like in Canada? If it got warmer sure Florida would be gone but wouldn’t places like Alberta be warmer, thus their crops could grow longer and they could plant different one. And places that were to cold for, like say, wheat could now grow it. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2001, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-news-about-global-warming/62487/2 "2001-04-19T03:21:16Z")
Except that decent portions of present-day Canada would probably be submerged. I suppose life _would_ be better on those parts still above water. ---
**Author:** ![Phobos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Phobos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phobos)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2001, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-news-about-global-warming/62487/3 "2001-04-19T12:40:46Z")
Although the effects of global warming are uncertain, it’s conceiveable that certain areas would receive an agricultural benefit (increased rainfall, longer growing season). Some currently inland property may become more valuable beach front property. 🙂 Storm-chasers may have more interesting opportunities. Some species may proliferate (good for them, but perhaps bad for us if that species is a disease-carrying mosquito, etc.). Anyway, you would need to weigh this against the down side. ---
**Author:** ![Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/50afbb/32.png) [@Duck\_Duck\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duck_Duck_Goose)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2001, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-news-about-global-warming/62487/4 "2001-04-19T12:47:18Z")
According to this month’s issue of _Outside_ magazine, there are robins appearing in places in the far north of Canada. Isn’t _that_ good news? All together now–awwww… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jharding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e480ec/32.png) [@jharding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jharding)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2001, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/good-news-about-global-warming/62487/5 "2001-04-19T18:31:34Z")
I hate to make this sound like a response to something in Great Debates, but… Good and bad are, of course, normative evaluations. That is, we decide what is good and what is bad. Stated another way, it is neither good nor bad that fossil fuels contribute to the greenhouse effect. This only becomes good or bad once we decide what is being lost or gained by this: more warm days, loss of alpine-dependent species, etc. (Obviously I’m not subscribing to any notions of intrinsic value here in this illustration). My sense is that the good things that some might propose would be vastly overshadowed by the bad things that inevitably come along as well. So to propose that there are good things that could result from global warming, I’d say well sure there are, but good may only have meaning for a small group of people or critters. The costs (read: bad), on the other hand, are more likely to be borne by greater numbers of people and things.