I’m really curious as to how Ethiopia fits into this. I Googled around and did find one article mentioning that Indian investors are buying land because they’re concerned about climate change, but why would Ethiopia in particular be a good place to buy? I always though most of Africa would be particularly susceptible to climate change since it’s already hot and dry. Interesting stuff about how the local population is getting screwed though.
If I was investing for climate change, I’d focus on land in Greenland, Canada and Russia. I think these countries will really benefit.
There are several projections and models that point at Ethiopia to be one of the few places where the changing climate will likely give more water to it by the end of the century, provided that we do not do much at all in controlling emissions. So if proper investments are made (and, as Cecil inferred, more money is unethically invested into more obfuscation and denial of the issue) Ethiopia may become a good investment in the long run.
The expectation in this paper and others I have seen is that, if there is continuing poverty, that then that expected excess of water will translate into the country getting more waterborne diseases and floods. But with investments it is likely that those bad news can be turned around as better management can get the water to become an asset and not a liability.
Of course, one should not miss that the same map of expected conditions by the end of the century, if no effort is made to control emissions, also tell us that Europe and most of western North America goes to pot. (Perennial Mega drought). And we have not mentioned the loss of cultivated land thanks to ocean rise.
I guess my own outrage-0’-meter must be off, because I don’t see how that list goes from ‘least to most evil’…none of them look particularly evil to me, though I suppose the one about using resources currently under the ice might be iffy from an eco-oriented persons perspective. I wonder why renewable energy was even on the list at all, to be honest…is it that evil ‘profit’ thingy?? And why was arctic tourism on the list? And why on the evil part of the spectrum??
I guess it is because of the assumption I mentioned. The last items, including arctic tourism, are going to become viable if there is very little done to control our emissions.
That scenario will allow arctic tourism and oil extraction where it was not possible before due to cap ice currently in place (but melting fast now). For that ice to melt it is likely then that “plucky” fossil fuel companies will continue to influence governments into ignoring the issue. Then while trade, tourism and oil extraction will benefit, the other side of the coin will be defaced. As Mega droughts, loss of territory, massive emigration (thanks to the xenophobia already evident in many places, that will translate into thousands if not millions dying in the unrest and revolts caused before hand by crop losses), economic uncertainty will be happening elsewhere.
As with any change, there will be winners and there will be losers. Home builders in Georgia should do very well having to provide for the residents of Miami … Sea wall contractors will definitely have more work than they know what to do with … U-Haul looks to be a good investment …
I’m only familiar with the water issues in the area I live in, and the problem here on the West Coast USA is far and away over-consumption. Even with the exact same amount of rainfall, many places out here are in water-crisis mode. In general a warmer atmosphere will generate more rainfall, but not enough to met humans’ ever expanding demand on this resource.
There’s money making opportunities to be had, invest wisely.
Overall, more CO2 and a few degrees warmer will help plant life - farming in more northern climes will improve. We already see the grape growing regions move further north. The implication is that there may actually be more food worldwide supporting a higher human population.
Another positive - it generally requires less energy to cool than to heat (unless you are using a heat pump). Those of us in the snow belt can expect reduced energy bills in the winter (higher in the summer but overall savings). Reduced energy needs actually cuts CO2 production as well.
But there’s probably cheap ways to perform solar energy management to deal with the unwillingness to change our consumption patterns. Lot’s cheaper than green energy or totalitarian approaches to behavior modification.
Do you have a cite for this part? I thought it required much more energy to cool than to heat. You can just burn something or run electricity through a resistor to heat something, but you have to have a whole compressor system to cool something.
Air conditioners are something of a luxury, by no means indispensable for a healthy life. I myself don’t own one and never have.
I run two fans for a total of 100 Watts, compare that to two heaters in winter for a total of 4,000 Watts. In a well insulated and tight house, your heaters are running 1/4 the time, but still, 1,000 W vs. 100 W … heating is ten times as polluting than cooling.
Whether heating or cooling is more expensive depends on how much of each you have to do. An overall increase in temperature would decrease HVAC costs in Minnesota, but increase them in Texas.
That’s interesting and all, but fans don’t actually cool the air. Do you have a cite that shows that cooling the air is less energy intensive than heating it? For example, in a gas-powered car, the heaters are free, since your engine generates excess heat and just running a fan over the radiator will provide heat, whereas the A/C takes energy. So, in the specific case of cooling the air in a car, A/C is much less energy efficient than heat.
Not sure if it would increase that much in Texas…it’s already pretty much a sunk cost there, since it’s so freaking hot in the state already. Going up a bit isn’t going to make that much of a difference on cooling costs. I’d say the states that currently don’t use AC that much would have the biggest increase.
Also, a lot of homes in the south west, where it’s so dry, use swamp coolers, which take pretty minimal energy (compared to refrigerated air AC units). However, they rely on pretty heavy water usage, so while it might be true that energy usage might only go up a bit, water usage or water loss (through additional evaporation) might go up quite a bit, and that would be harder on the south western states, where water is increasingly a major issue.
If you have heard about Ethiopia’s upward potential, the gain is already discounted, and the high rollers have already escalated the costs to the long run projections. If you buy now, you are already just buying from investor profit-taking.
I’ve heard a few comments in recent years that Ethiopia has become an inexplicably expensive place to travel and live. I’m going there next month, I can report back on that.
There has been a mini-run on Canadian farmland, mostly by Canadian buyers, and prices in some areas have already peaked and are beginning to settle back.
As a general rule of thumb, the benefits from climate change are relatively few compared to a very long list of negatives, and most of them will either be short-lived or offset by negative factors. For example, yields for certain crop types may increase in some cooler temperate regions, but this is only expected to hold for a temperature rise of about two degrees and then turn negative. And even within that narrow range, the benefits may be more than offset by other effects like pests, disease, and extreme weather. For instance, here in southern Ontario growing seasons are longer and wine country is doing well because of warming temperatures, but right at the moment we’re past six weeks of almost no rain and I’ve heard that many crops have been heavily impacted by the drought. The only interruption to the drought were some severe localized hail storms following a heat wave. This is typical of climate change – precipitation changes and extreme weather.
It’s less evil than the rest in the same way that helping an old lady across the street is less evil than stuffing a bunch of babies into a bag then throwing in that bag into a fire.
Eh, I see the criticism of efforts like renewable energy as one of the big contradictions coming from many of the ones that do not want do see a big change happening.
So new technology and industry that can make many rich and produce jobs, with the side benefit of reducing emissions is impossible because… reasons. Another contradiction is that I have seen a lot of effort to discourage the changes by many declaring that the proponents of change want to send civilization to the stone age, in reality many of the ones proposing change do not see a contradiction on getting private industry to benefit as well as getting government involved.
One should never forget that in the modern age there are groups that currently profit from the status quo that will fund efforts to prevent change at all levels. We should never forget that there are organizations that basically use the same reasons and tactics to prevent change in the past. Like for example, the ferry boat companies that spent lots of money in the attempt to defeat the building of the Golden Gate bridge in San Francisco.
It always requires less energy to MOVE heat than CREATE it, which is why I excluded heat pumps (essentially A/C units run in reverse).
A moderately efficient A/C unit with an EER rating of 10 would move 10 Btu/hour per watt hour.
A resistive heater generates 3.4 Btu for every watt.
That makes the A/C unit about 3x the efficiency in terms of watts used. Note that some kinds of heat pumps are more efficient than 10, but that’s pretty typical for air/air units. ground/air (requiring a well) costs a lot more to install but may be your best bet depending on your climate. Remember heat pumps work in both directions.
Another way to make money with climate change is to work the fear mongering circuit with half-truths and incomplete science … talk shows, books, interviews … with 300 news channels of 24/7 coverage … there’s money to be had.
Hypercanes and hockey sticks … preach the Word brothers … [ka’ching]