# What about nations that benefit from AGW? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 31, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516 "2015-08-31T17:26:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/21 "2015-08-31T20:38:16Z")
That’s nice, but a short geological time frame still encompasses all of human history and most of our meaningful prehistory. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/22 "2015-08-31T20:42:33Z")
> [@mil0](#): > > 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? Like they already aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/23 "2015-08-31T20:56:55Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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: > > [http://www.climateadaptation.eu/sweden/coastal-floods/](http://www.climateadaptation.eu/sweden/coastal-floods/) > 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. The argument is twofold: 1. Assuming Sweden (among others) benefit from the change, why should they work against the interest of their own population? 2. Since Swedens’ emission levels are already extremely low, why should they work to lower their further? A third argument could be that from a global perspective Sweden is a bad place to try to make “greener” because it is already so green, the marginal benefit is much lower than what you would get by investing in a more polluting country. A 10% decrease in emissions per capita is both more expensive to achieve in Sweden than in the US, and the results from it are also objectively much less. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/24 "2015-08-31T21:13:08Z")
The answers were already mentioned in the previous post. To prevent a troublesome situation from becoming a disastrous one. And no one is asking then more from Sweden, your task now is to tell other leaders of nations with their heads stuck in the sand to see how changing to less polluting ways is not going to “taik er jerbss!” (take their jobs) ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/25 "2015-08-31T22:15:59Z")
Fuck. I think I accidentally convinced myself. I was just trying those arguments out… But now I kind of agree with them :o ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/26 "2015-08-31T23:04:40Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Fuck. I think I accidentally convinced myself. I was just trying those arguments out… But now I kind of agree with them :o I certainly think you’re on to something here, Sweden has been advancing all throughout the past 10,000 years of global warming, I see no reason why that should stop anytime soon. I also think it applies to most countries. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/27 "2015-08-31T23:43:20Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > 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. Uh, no. > **[Are we heading into a new Ice Age?](https://skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm)** > > The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth's orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels. > [@](#): > > The warming effect from more CO2 greatly outstrips the influence from changes in the Earth’s orbit or solar activity, even if solar levels were to drop to Maunder Minimum levels. On the Basic explanation tab: > [@](#): > > So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely: > > ``` > These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years. > The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2015, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/28 "2015-08-31T23:51:22Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Fuck. I think I accidentally convinced myself. I was just trying those arguments out… But now I kind of agree with them :o Well, lets clarify: The question was: “Assuming Sweden (among others) benefit from the change, why should they work against the interest of their own population?” When I said that “To prevent a troublesome situation from becoming a disastrous one.” I was referring to the assumption that Sweden would benefit. As the problem with what will happen in the coast and others mentioned shows, it **is** on the interest of the population to continue getting better at sequestering carbon emissions. And also the solutions they could come with the adaptations needed will be examples to follow for other nations. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/29 "2015-09-01T00:03:25Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > I certainly think you’re on to something here, Sweden has been advancing all throughout the past 10,000 years of global warming, I see no reason why that should stop anytime soon. I also think it applies to most countries. The points that are missed here is that that was a natural warming, in fact at the begining of those 10000 years it warmed enough to allow modern civilization to appear, but then the increase basically stopped and allowed civilizations to develop. > **[Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick'](https://skepticalscience.com/marcott-hockey-stick-real-skepticism.html)** > > A new global temperature reconstruction over the past 11,300 years by Marcott et al. (2013) has been described as 'the new hockey stick,' and adopted into 'the wheelchair' by Jos Hagelaars by including temperatures further in the past and projected... The last 8000 years of that were very stable and it was cooling a bit, but then the unnatural warming is showing and coming. As seen in many places of the earth, it is not likely that the warming expected will to be kind to the civilization that we have developed so far. > **[Climate science once again finds itself fighting with hockey sticks](https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/climate-science-once-again-finds-itself-fighting-with-hockey-sticks/#page-2)** > > A recent climate paper’s set off a torrent of complaints. We look at why. > [@](#): > > The over-arching irony of all of this is that, although it’s helpful to place the current warming in a larger context, that context isn’t really needed in order to motivate action on carbon emissions. Carbon dioxide is clearly a greenhouse gas, one that equally clearly acidifies the oceans. We’ve obviously been sending vast quantities of it into the atmosphere. And the instrument record shows the temperatures are rising as the carbon dioxide builds, at a time when no other driver of the climate seems to be changing. > > Knowing that the current warming is unique within the Holocene would add to the concern. But there’s plenty of cause to be concerned without it. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/30 "2015-09-01T00:18:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Well, lets clarify: > > The question was: “Assuming Sweden (among others) benefit from the change, why should they work against the interest of their own population?” > > When I said that “To prevent a troublesome situation from becoming a disastrous one.” I was referring to the assumption that Sweden would benefit. As the problem with what will happen in the coast and others mentioned shows, it **is** on the interest of the population to continue getting better at sequestering carbon emissions. And also the solutions they could come with the adaptations needed will be examples to follow for other nations. I would argue that since climate change is going to happen anyway, and Sweden is already doing more than most countries as well as contributing very little to actual emissions, it would be in our best interest to invest into adapting to the change rather than investing more into reducing emissions. There really isn’t that much more Sweden can do to reduce it. Our energy production is already either renewable or nuclear and lots of regulation is already in place. There are incentives and subsidies for green technology in pretty much every sector, from transportation to heating or construction. We’ve done our job. We’ve got much lower emissions than any comparable country (like Finland, Norway and Denmark). The idea that we should set an example for other nations is perhaps laudable, but I would counter with this: We already are. But obviously others aren’t following. How much better than everyone else do we have to be, and how did this responsibility fall on us? If Sweden reduced its emission by 100% it would have less impact on the global total than if the US reduced its emissions by 1%. If the US lowered its emissions to Swedish standards it would have 75 times as much impact as if Sweden simply stopped existing. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/31 "2015-09-01T00:29:30Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > Assuming country X actually stands to benefit from AGW, should or shouldn’t they be working towards decreasing the emission of greenhouse gases? Only if you think selfishness is a virtue. ---
**Author:** ![Stoneburg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/df705f/32.png) [@Stoneburg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoneburg)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/32 "2015-09-01T00:56:53Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Only if you think selfishness is a virtue. The politicians are elected to represent the interest of their population, are they not? ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/33 "2015-09-01T00:59:57Z")
I’m sure that there are countries that will have higher economic growth due to AGW. However, the models aren’t good enough to know which countries those will be. Further complicating is that a country helped in earlier stages could be hurt later, and visa versa. What about nations that are most harmed by AGW? I think you can know that, in advance, with more certainty: > **[These Countries Face The Biggest Threats From Climate Change](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/climate-change-vulnerability-index-countries-impacts-costs_n_4174938)** > > These Countries Face The Biggest Threats From Climate Change At least eight of the ten most vulnerable countries are way too small for anything they do to affect global warming as a whole. If living there (or even if living in the West), I would hope the rich countries eventually come up with something truly strong enough to reverse trends already in progress (geoengineering?), while the vulnerable poor concentrate on helping themselves (dikes?). ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/34 "2015-09-01T01:04:24Z")
Without going into a lot of detail and speculation, the short answer is the effects of climate change are very non-homogenous, and it’s hitting some countries very hard (much of Africa, for instance) and others are seeing scattered benefits – it’s helping the Ontario wine industry, for instance, and helping make the Northwest Passage navigable. But no country exists in isolation. Canada is one of the lucky ones so far with respect to climate change, but we need to understand that the two big problems are, first, that with much of the world facing climate catastrophe, Canada and all the other apparently luckier countries will be hit with the effects of massive crop failures and starvation elsewhere in the world, whether it affects us through huge amounts of foreign aid, immigration policy, or participation in foreign wars as the world potentially enters a period of widespread political instability, starvation, and perhaps masses of desperate refugees. The second big problem is that climate is global and climate destabilization is a global problem from which no country will be immune. Rapidly forced climate change is never benign, it’s destabilizing. It’s not as simple as saying that it’s nice for a cold country to be a little warmer – it comes at the cost of extreme weather, potentially harmful regional climate changes, droughts, floods, wildfires, etc. – and possibly major global circulation changes completely turning major climate systems on their head. The Inuit up north are already suffering the impacts of melting permafrost, with houses and roads collapsing into sinkholes, eroding shorelines, and up in Alaska (not Canada, but to make a point about the north) an entire village had to be relocated as its land literally disappeared. And we’re seeing pest infestations like a northward migration of the pine bark beetle, and there will be many others. We could potentially face a complete wipeout of our whole wheat economy if the wrong kind of long-term weather changes occur over the prairies. Just for a few examples. > [@LinusK](#): > > 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. Please check out the present level of CO2 and where it’s heading, then look to see what CO2 levels are associated with ice ages, and stop making completely absurd, totally unfounded and incorrect statements. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/35 "2015-09-01T01:43:37Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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. This. Canada has about 10% the population of the USA. If climate change somehow leads to enough of a permanent loss of agricultural productivity in the southwestern quarter, we eventually _will_ come north, and neither Christian charity nor Mother England will stop us. :mad: Just because you think your territory will do better doesn’t mean your descendants will control that territory. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/36 "2015-09-01T01:49:46Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > 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. LOL Oh, cupcake, you have no idea. Seriously, your southeastern flank is an estuary and your southwestern flank is flatland and an itty-bitty strait. You could be conquered by canoes. Ya ain’t securing\* nothin’.\* ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/37 "2015-09-01T01:54:27Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > We could potentially face a complete wipeout of our whole wheat economy if the wrong kind of long-term weather changes occur over the prairies. A lot would then depend on whether plant breeders could use the fastest methods to come up with, and bring to market, wheat varieties compatible with new climatic conditions. Right now, they can’t, although this could improve: [http://albertaventure.com/2014/10/wheat-brain/](http://albertaventure.com/2014/10/wheat-brain/) > [@](#): > > Cereals Canada, says it’s time to go for it [GMO seed]. “If we do this properly, I think there stand to be tremendous benefits,” he says. “We’ve seen that from other examples: there have been tremendous gains in corn and soybean and canola yields. And tremendous gains not just in yield, but in where these crops can be grown.” It makes sense to moderate the extent of warming greenhouse gas production with renewable energy. But there’s already so much warming gas in the air, and so little prospect of geoengineering to dramatically reverse trends, that continued temperature rise seems inevitable. So it makes sense to effect tradeoffs needed to mitigate the bad effects of warming. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/38 "2015-09-01T01:57:51Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > If Sweden reduced its emission by 100% it would have less impact on the global total than if the US reduced its emissions by 1%. If the US lowered its emissions to Swedish standards it would have 75 times as much impact as if Sweden simply stopped existing. You’re not wrong here. But if the Nordic countries decided to help AGW along by selling the rest of the world [del]poison[/del] petroleum and coal, that would be mean. (Looking at your fish-breathed friends to the north and west here.) ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/39 "2015-09-01T02:17:38Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > This. Canada has about 10% the population of the USA. If climate change somehow leads to enough of a permanent loss of agricultural productivity in the southwestern quarter, we eventually _will_ come north, and neither Christian charity nor Mother England will stop us. :mad: > > Just because you think your territory will do better doesn’t mean your descendants will control that territory. Yep, it could come to that. There’s already yammering about stealing water from the Great Lakes and piping it off to the south and California, despite the fact that in some seasons the water levels are already low enough to be a navigation hazard. So maybe in anticipation Canada should dramatically expand and weaponize its armed forces. Maybe get back into the nuclear weapons game – a few hundred megatons of MAD deterrent might do the trick! Global warming is shaping up to be so much fun – Curtis LeMay would have loved it! :rolleyes: OTOH, if you look at where and how the impacts will hit hardest, Americans may be far too busy trying to secure their southern border from starving hordes to worry too much about invading the northern one! > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > It makes sense to moderate the extent of warming greenhouse gas production with renewable energy. But there’s already so much warming gas in the air, and so little prospect of geoengineering to dramatically reverse trends, that continued temperature rise seems inevitable. So it makes sense to effect tradeoffs needed to mitigate the bad effects of warming. I agree. But the lesson here is that we need to do many things in parallel. We can’t rationalize away the underlying problem because for many of the consequences, there just aren’t any solutions, or the solutions are hugely expensive. No amount of GMO-modified anything is going to work if there’s no water, or if there’s _only_ water and no land. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2015, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516/40 "2015-09-01T02:36:52Z")
> [@Stoneburg](#): > > I would argue that since climate change is going to happen anyway, and Sweden is already doing more than most countries as well as contributing very little to actual emissions, it would be in our best interest to invest into adapting to the change rather than investing more into reducing emissions. Well, you lost me here, The important thing to take into account is that it can get worse, much much worse. And while it is true that what Sweden emits is small, it does help still to prevent the worse scenarios. As for the rest of your points about places of America not doing enough, tell me something I don't know. The important thing is that while you may think you could just gave up the reality is that internationally speaking countries like you are important in discussions like the one coming in France, as it happens even the USA and China are making agreements on this so the pressure needs to come to make better deals take place. . [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-about-nations-that-benefit-from-agw/729516.md?page=3)