Back when I was actually active in politics this was an issue I almost never brought up so I’ve never actually debated it with anyone, so here goes:
Some countries, including Sweden where I live, will likely benefit from the global climate getting warmer. There are definitely adverse effects as well, but at least some studies that I read at the time indicated that in total the changes would either be neutral or positive. This would include mainly increased crops and lower costs for heating, which are pretty significant in countries with colder climates.
Assuming country X actually stands to benefit from AGW, should or shouldn’t they be working towards decreasing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Not to argue your overall point, but with regards to Sweden isn’t one of the hypothesized effects of global warming that the strength of the Gulf Stream would deteriorate, thus rendering Sweden, and its Nordic neighbors nigh uninhabitable?
If we accept, for the sake of argument, that there are countries whose local effects from AGW are net positive, they would still be negatively impacted by the damage to the rest of the world. The problems of their allies and trading parters would affect them as well.’
The global disruption from a worst case AGW scenario would rise to the level of general war and economic loss of catastrophic proportions; it is unlikely any country will be better off.
I mean, a lot of Canada could be way more habitable if things get warmer, but if it comes with World War Three I don’t think the tradeoff will be worth it.
I think that was debunked a while back and is no longer considered a real problem.
It seems pretty uncontroversial that it will have a net positive effect for some countries, especially those close to the polar circle.
The problems for their allies and trading partners could also be seen as a positive, for example by increasing exports.
Even the problem with rising sea levels is not that much of an issue. The scandinavian landmass has been rising since the last ice age and nicely counter balances it.
Another argument is that Sweden has one of the lowest emission rates per capita in the industrialized world, less than a third of the US, so why should we have to work at a problem that we’re not responsible for and that is not actually a problem, but rather a boon for us?
Sweden has the best track record in the world for staying out of wars and indeed profiting from them. Case in point we made a bundle selling steel to Hitler, and when Germany started losing we made money from the Allies instead. Partly as a result of the world wars, Swedens’ industries entered a golden age that catapulted the country to the top of the list of economic successes. Bring it on.
Not so. It’s already happening. By rights, Sweden should be far colder than it is so any weakening of the Gulf Stream will cool your climate much quicker than global temperatures pull it up. *Other *areas of the polar circle will benefit, just not you or Norway.
I’m not an economist, so I could be wrong about this, but if the countries you export things to have their economies collapse, I’m pretty sure they buy less of your stuff, not more.
Another thing: I hear Sweden is taking in a lot of refugees these days. Most people seem to agree that it’s starting to cause problems - placing strain on government programs, increasing unemployment, etc.
If the rest of the world becomes, say, 5-10% less habitable, what do you think will happen to the immigration numbers of the handful of countries that are ‘doing better’?
Easy solution, we just close our borders. Which is pretty easy considering our geography. Then we are basically sitting pretty with nicer weather, better crops and lower utility bills.
Global warming will benefit Russia, Scandinavia, Canada, Alaska. It will enable cheap shipping routes from Asia to Europe, and open up the Northwest Passage. Some areas in the temperate zone will become drier, some wetter. But the main effect will be to enhance agricultural productivity.
Well, yes, but then that would be like ignoring the problem that, according to the OP was an option. I do not thing that other nations would stand by when they see Sweden attempting to get out of their share of the burden.
One thing to remember is that ‘the times they are a changing’ and it also affects the latest reports on what to expect.
Now here is the issue AFAIK that could affect a place like Sweden, usually water that is in the rivers keeps flowing in the summertime because of the ice that accumulated in the wintertime on the mountain glaciers.
The problem that was noticed recently is that the loss of the ice in glaciers has been accelerating, (IIRC a few are growing because of more water vapor in the atmosphere, but the increase AFAIK is not counteracting the loss of ice in other locations). So besides ocean rise affecting the coastlines of Sweden, now we have to add the possibility that less water will be available in the summer time and then as a double hit the water that comes in winter melts much faster, meaning that more severe floods are likely to happen on a few months of the year.
Now as I noted on another thread countries can prepare for the change by making things like small dams to save the water that normally would had turned to ice in the winter and slowly melted during the summer months.
I checked at the situation in Sweeden and it looks like there is a controversy going on about removing, improving or making new dams.
Now when humans now and in the near future have to do more of the job that nature did before it means that the costs to deal with the issue will increase.
There are other items like realizing that the new “normal” climate and weather that we could get does depend on when the CO2 that we spew into the atmosphere is controlled, right now even if we could find that places like Sweeden could benefit the problem is that we are dealing with a moving target and it could happen that early on for a few decades a Scandinavian nation could do better, but then since we did not control the emissions earlier then the nice conditions can change to less desirable ones when going farther into the future.
Did I mention before that also then xenophobia would have to be controlled if we want to avoid human disasters if millions will not be able to move from other nations that will be affected more by the changes? Refugees are then more likely to go to the few nations that by then it will be clear that they are benefiting from all this.
In a past discussion I pointed to a nativist that also denies climate change (there are many of those that I encountered in the SDMB too) how it was ironic that by not doing anything on the climate issue then it means that his other issue (an increase of immigrants) was going to get worse. Well, what I said to them still applies to many deniers out there: “Nice job breaking it hero”
Then my argument would be that Sweden is already carrying their share of the burden. Emissions per capita is among the lowest in Europe, even though the country had a cold climate. Our emissions are less than a third of the US or Canada for example. So how about you come back once you’ve reduced yours down to our levels and we can discuss it later.
Pretty much all our energy comes from hydro or nuclear and we already have progressive policies in place to phase out gasoline for renewable fuels. I could argue that we have already done everything that we can realistically do. We’re already among the best, so why should we have to do more while countries like the US spew out more than three times as much greenhouse gases per capita and evidently aren’t doing anything.
Flooding would be a marginal problem, if any, and is only applicable in the northern parts of the country that are the very least populated.
We could either close our borders, or do what other nations do and only accept refugees who are healthy and have a good education, thus being able to contribute to our economy.
Well, I deal with my deniers over here, but that is not the point for the thread. The point is about the places that will benefit but do not be so sure about what places:
The point is that although you want to minimize it Sweden is going to also be also affected. So, then one should not bother making any efforts to control emissions?
No, because we all have to continue to work to prevent the changes from becoming worse than that.
As it was pointed before it is too late to prevent some changes, adaptation is also in the plate.
Climate has changed throughout the world’s history.
We’re currently living in an interglacial period of an ice age. What that means is we’re currently in a window of warmer temperatures during an epoch when temperatures are usually much colder. The good news is (or bad news, I guess, depending on your philosophy - or where you live) normally the interglacial periods last about 10,000 years, and the current one started about 10,000 years ago.
So in a short time (geologically speaking) we should expect Sweden - as well as Canada, and parts of the northern US - to be buried under ice once again.
