No country will escape the effects of climate change.

That's a truism.

But some regions may "weather" the change better than others.

Taken as a whole both Europe and North America:

--Have adequate water resources though there could be local problems as in California and parts of Spain

--Are easily able to feed themselves.

By contrast China faces environmental catastrophe. It could find itself unable to provide potable water for its 1.3 billion people. India, with its still rapidly growing population, could also have problems in that regard.

Much of the third world, especially Africa with its burgeoning population, could be in even worse shape.

Far from having to support 9 billion people by 2050 the Earth may have a much smaller population than today's 6.5 billion because so many billions in China, India and Africa will have perished from hunger, thirst and consequent conflict.

That would leave Europe and North America dominating the planet.

And if I can think these thoughts then presumably so can the folk in the Pentagon and Brussels.

Australia with it's relatively small population should be OK provided we keep our defences strong, ready to repel the coming climate change refugees. I assume the strategists in Canberra are planning for these contingencies

I believe the discussions around climate change are comparable to the "smoking" debate of last century ... smoking kills, yet their are a myriad of reasons people continue to smoke. Climate change /global warming will also kill us, but their are a myriad of economic and social reasons for us to avoid changing for as long as possible.

Like the smoking debate, the outcome will be the same - an acceptance that we have to change our existing paradigm. But how much more damage will we do while this process of "change evolution" takes place.

Corri,

The issue seems to be as follows:

Climate change and the consequent regional catastrophes may actually be a net ADVANTAGE for some countries or regions.

If China and India were stopped in their tracks as global competitors and global population reduced by say 2 billion due to the deaths of a few billion Indians, Chinese and Africans, would that not benefit Europe and North America?

It requires a certain ruthlessness to think along these lines but ruthlessness has never been a problem for us.

Steven,

I believe ecosystems have a way of balancing themselves, and death is part of that cycle. If viewed impartially, what you say is realistic whether we actively pursue or, more likely, don't change our current practice. Earth's resources and reactions will force our hand one way or another, either via increasingly extreme climatic conditions with the resultant "collateral damage" or extended drought / flood cycles with decreasing food yields, increasing famine and therefore loss of life.

Most likely those countries least able to afford change will be hardest hit, such as the nations you've mentioned.

One thing is for sure, the faster we at a micro level manage our eco footprint the sooner we can impact the global change. After all global warming started locally!

Stevenlmeyer – I have read that in some models China will benefit from climate change due to an increase in rain fall in it inland.

I think it is tragic that climate change and or booming population growth will cause millions of refugee’s and possibly millions of deaths.

If millions do die we can partly blame our benign attitude which is giving them aid when they need it and providing vaccinations against many diseases. This has caused the booming populations in the third world which we now see. But due to lack of institutions there societies are mostly failures which has led to the baby boom which we see.

When it comes to aid we need to go the whole hog instead of just enough to sustain them.

The only issue I have with the whole climate change is;

Why is ANYONE anti a cleaner way for our species to exist?. The more people there are, the tougher it is on the environment. Isn't that a fact?. Why not clean up our act?. Our society is just plain wasteful. What's the problem with being more respectful of our environment.

I don't care about the contradicting arguments over Al Gore and his message. Isn't a change towards us being a species that coexists with our environment better, a good thing?

StG

Think outside the box.

Are we seeing the opening shots of World War 3 with WEATHER USED AS A WEAPON?

I am NOT saying that North America and Europe would escape unscathed. What I am saying is that they could emerge battered, bruised but DOMINANT.

The argument of the Greens has always been "We're all in this together. It is in the interests of the developed world to reach an accommodation with the less developed countries and with China and India."

But perhaps we're NOT in this together. Perhaps from the point of view of Europe and North America the way to retain global supremacy is to LET CATASTROPHE HAPPEN. It could lead to a drastic reduction in population as literally billions die in China, India and Africa. With economies there imploding the growth of greenhouse gas emission would be reversed before total calamity overtook the developed world.

In a way we may be looking at a global game of chicken with Europe and North America counting on being the last regions standing.

Do you really think the folk at the Pentagon or NATO haven't game planned this sort of scenario?

WOW, that's right out in left field somewhere.

I believe someone in charge has considered climate change creating issues with people needing to be relocated due to flooding etc....

But who will Europe and North America trade with?. YOu seriously reckon big business (who is really running everything) is gonna just sit back and watch it all go to sh....?

Sorry, mate. That's way too out there for me.

StG,

Which of these two statements seems more credible to you?

The United States and the EU will help China and India become economic and military super-powers by bearing the cost of drastically reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions.

The United States and the EU will seek to undermine the emergence of China and India as economic and military super-powers and are prepared to pay a price to achieve this goal.

Steven, and you think China, Russia, India, Iran and Co have not thought of these scenarios as well?

Let the games begin (I mean continue...)

Water wars are already being assessed my military strategists and economic thinkers worldwide. Not to mention wars over oil, we're witnessing an oil war now in Iraq.

I believe, from Australia's view, our biggest fear will not be from military attack but mass landings of refugees. What do we do if 1 million Indonesian refugees float across to NT? There is abundant water and arable land up North ... something severely lacking in Indonesia.

As for wars (Steven's comment), I struggle to see humanity suddenly achieving worldwide compassion and an ability to share our resources and wealth, just so those less fortunate in Africa, China and elsewhere can achieve a similar consumerist society.

As Q&A stated ... watch the "games" continue.

could someone suggest a book/essay which tries to chart the breakdown of civil society in australia as climate change (in its more dire predicted outworkings) takes effect?

it occurs to me that if, as i likely, we do not solve the problem, and human civilization continues to be threatened, in an exponentially rising tide of threat, that things like social security safety net, humane treatment for prisoners, and civil society generall, will all steadily crumble as we naturally try to adjust to totally altered circumstances...

i'm interested in darkly meditating on such themes and would like some titles/authors/fora in order to get orientated

thanks,
michael fitzgerald

I guess most of you have not heard that the whole human caused global
warming debate has been thrown wide open again.

It appears the IPCC study and projections assumed that there would be
unrestricted access to oil, gas and coal and also assumed growth
continuing at the present rate.

However these assumptions are incorrect and there will not be anywhere
near enough CO2 generated to match the IPCCs model projections.

So thats it, no point arguing about how we can cut back CO2 as it will
be cut back much faster due to depletion than we can build sequestration
or windmills etc.
However we will need a crash program of alternative energy.

Notice how the pollies are completely silent on this ?
It is just like saying that God is dead, it gets the same reaction.

It never ceases to amaze me why some people take the IPCC reports out of context or selectively cherry-pick without having an understanding of the IPCC process or its procedures, let alone have read them. This lack of understanding borders on paranoia or fundamental denialism, neither of which is going to help in moving into the future.

Bazz says “It appears the IPCC study and projections assumed that there would be unrestricted access to oil, gas and coal and also assumed growth continuing at the present rate. However these assumptions are incorrect and there will not be anywhere near enough CO2 generated to match the IPCCs model projections.”

The IPCC reports on emission scenarios, specifically ‘Special Report on Emission Scenarios’ (SRES). While there are a number of scenarios or storylines described; the A1B, A1F1, A1T, A2, B1 and B2 are most often cited.

The A1 storyline develops into three groups that describe alternative directions in the energy system; fossil fuel intensive, non-fossil fuel intensive or balanced (defined as not relying too heavily on one or another).

Depending on which model is projected, different outcomes are described and reproduced in the different graphs you will see on temperature rise, CO2 concentration or even sea levels.

Bazz does make a valid point though, “we will need a crash program of alternative energy”, not because “the whole human caused global warming debate has been thrown wide open”, but rather … humanity is finally starting to understand that its behaviour is having an adverse impact on the planet, its environment and ecology. We must find a solution to sustainable development

Well Davsab is right there are a number of scenarios or perhaps better
decribed as bets each of many ways.
However why is it the pollies are always taking the worse outcome ?
It now appears that the worse outcomes are out of the question.

I waded through the report when it came out but I think there are a
number of revisions since. Perhaps revisions is too harsh a word perhaps
adjustments would be better. I wonder if they will review it in view
of these later developments.
More to the point will the pollies blythely go ahead and spend our money
as they have promised without adjustment because no one will be game
enough to say that the Emporer has no clothes ?

“However, why is it the pollies are always taking the worse outcome?” A very good question Bazz and presumably fits well with Steven’s apparent cynicism. What you say Steve?

“It now appears that the worse outcomes are out of the question.”

Not sure about this tho’, what actually do you mean? Some say we are in for one big ugly ride and politicians and political ideology have the propensity to stuff up. It’s these power games that Steve and Q&A allude to that is most worrying and gives rise to the cynicism portrayed, and somewhat justified, here.

But, maybe it’s not all doom and gloom … we can see an international willingness (leaders with global vision) of countries, business and communities to really act in a responsible way, particularly when they see kudos in doing the right thing or there is a buck to be had.

BTW Bazz, the IPCC reports have not been revised as such. However, in light of new research findings (that could not be included in the original AR4 reports) there does appear to be more and bigger problems on the horizon. The AR4 synthesis report is about to be released; have a read when it is made public and get back to us with your thoughts.

For me, I am extremely interested in the outcome of the December meeting of the UNFCCC in Bali – will Australia be at the negotiating table? Very much dependent on our election outcome.

Q&A

Iran is a minor player.

I'm sure strategists in India and China have war gamed these scenarios. What may they do? They're caught between a rock and a hard place. They either develop or face civil unrest.

Russia is a special case. It is a vast country with plenty of freshwater reserves. It also has a small and declining population. In fact Russia faces demographic collapse.

My guess.

The Western part of Russia will be taken over by its Muslim South.

The eastern part will be overrun by refugees from China.

In fact there are some indications that Chinese migrants, both formal and informal, have already established a formidable presence in much of Eastern Russia.

I doubt the Chinese migrants in Eastern Russia want the Communist regime in Beijing to follow them.

So Russia could split into a Muslim West and a Chinese East. The next super-power may be Chinese Eastern Russia.

Africa can do nothing.

However I come back to the best guess of what climate change will bring. It is most likely that North America and Europe will "weather" the change best. I don't mean they'll emerge unscathed. But I think they will emerge in much better shape than China, India or Africa.

And if those emerging countries suffer population implosion and collapse North America and Europe will retain their dominance.
.

Davsab

Experience shows that countries do not behave altruistically. They pursue their own interests. ALP may talk a better game but I doubt they'll walk the walk any more than Europe or North America.

Follow this link and tell me whether it looks as if anybody is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/oct/30/energy.oilandpetrol

And another thing…
I was intrigued to hear the recent Californian fires had, according to news reports, produced the same volume of CO2 as ‘nearly half a million cars’ would have done over ‘a twelve month period‘.

I got to thinking , if fires of such relative short duration could have such impact, what of the thousands of fires worldwide, burning 24/7 – perhaps culpability for climate change was more widespread than we’d been lead to believe(?)

I visited my local climate change proselyte & aired my concerns .
He was intransigent, they’d got the ‘right man– he had form !’:
They had previously ‘cornered him over colonisation –conclusively proving he’d caused all the woes of the underdeveloped world‘.
They were ‘concurrently pursuing him, on a charge of profiteering from slavery‘–and ‘exhorting /extorting (cant recall which word he used) reparations‘.
And they were ‘just waiting an apology’ to move into the greenfield prospect of ‘genocide against indigenes, at home‘.

He said ‘they were going to nail him on climate change’ as well – and they didn’t want to hear any ‘hot air about a few inconvenient facts‘.

‘And’ he whispered, ‘after all who with a smidgin of decorum would expect a poor third world farmer with 10 kids and another on the way , eking out a living dynamiting sea reefs and moonlighting arsenic leaching gold reefs, while his wife laboured over a cow dung & forest wood fire preparing bushmeat meals, to pay climate dues.

‘Besides’ he confided ‘one of the damages clauses in the case would provide that the transgressor resettle half the Third World farmers’ children in the First World– and equip them with all the First Worlds consumer goods’

It's interesting Steven states US will "weather" the storm better than other regions in the world ... but that is predominantly an economic focus. There is significant climate change and land degradation happening throughout the southern states, and traditional growing areas are in a similar state to our Murray region in VIC / SA.

The financial might of the States is undisputed, but without food, sustainable oil supplies and sufficient water how will they maintain superiority. Their are signs of implosion now.

While China are going strength to strength ... though also facing signficant issues over water quality and farmable land.

An interesting read for those who haven't seen it yet is "When the Rivers Run Dry" by Fred Pearce. Some fascinating statistics and facts about where we're at and where we are heading. (Has a follow up too that addresses critics of the 1st book).

Corri

The US is an open society. You read about and see their environmental woes.

China is becoming more open but the media don't report much of the goings on inside China.

This may help you understand some of China's environmental woes.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86503/elizabeth-c-economy/the-great-leap-backward.html

Quote:

>>China's environmental problems are mounting. Water pollution and water scarcity are burdening the economy, rising levels of air pollution are endangering the health of millions of Chinese, and much of the country's land is rapidly turning into desert.>>

By contrast North America, which includes Canada, has more than half the world's potable water supply. It will not run out of water.

There will certainly be disruptions as agriculture moves from some states that are over-heating and drying out (California for example) to more northerly states that are warming up and have adequate water. But the North American region as a whole will have water and food.

In fact crop yields in some northerly states are already on the up due to the, for them benign, effects of global warming.

Similar comments apply to Europe. In parts of Germany global warming has actually had a benign effect.

China going "from strength to strength" means nothing if they run out of water for their huge population. One fifth of humanity is crammed into a country with less arable land and water resources than North America or Europe.

Another quote:

>>Coal provides about 70 percent of China's energy needs: the country consumed some 2.4 billion tons in 2006 -- more than the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom combined. In 2000, China anticipated doubling its coal consumption by 2020; it is now expected to have done so by the end of this year. Consumption in China is huge partly because it is inefficient: as one Chinese official told Der Spiegel in early 2006, "To produce goods worth $10,000 we need seven times the resources used by Japan, almost six times the resources used by the U.S. and -- a particular source of embarrassment -- almost three times the resources used by India.">>

Stevenmeyer,
On top of all that China has turned into a coal importer.
Until last year it was an exporter.
Peak Coal for the world is 2030 (EWG report on world coal).

There will be a problem with the buying of Australian coal companies
by China. What if they want to export it to China and not make it
available for us ?
They have already done this world wide with oil.
See Angola, Sudan, Chad and others.

Some perspectives on China

How big is China's economy?

International comparisons of GDP are fraught. The two most common measures are "exchange rate" and purchasing power parity (PPP).

The exchange rate method multiplies the local currency value of goods & services by the average exchange rate for the year. By this measure China's GDP is $2.6 trillion. That's a little more than half the size of Japan's economy.

The PPP method takes into account differences in prices between countries. By this measure China's GDP is $10.2 trillion. (In most developed countries the difference between the two measures is only of the order of 10-15%)

Which is the better measure?

To compare standards of living PPP is the better measure. What's important to a consumer in Shanghai is what he can buy for his remnimbi denominated paycheque.

However when assessing the importance of an economy on the world stage the exchange rate method is preferred. We trade in real dollars, not "PPP" dollars.

Except that the Chinese government keeps the remnimbi undervalued so $2.6 trillion is probably too low.

Most pundits guess the value of the remnimbi should rise 50%. Adding 50% to $2.6 trillion gives $3.9 trillion. Call it $4 trillion. On the global scale China's economy is slightly less important than Japan's. Of course it's growing faster. China is achieving somewhat better growth rates than Japan achieved back in the 1950s-1980s

The combined GDP of the US, Japan and UK is $20 trillion. So China uses more coal to produce one fifth by value the goods in these three countries.

Much of China's growth has been fueled by foreign investors from Japan, USA and EU using China as a manufacturing platform. "Chinese exports" are often actually European, US or Japanese exports manufactured in China. This will probably change over time.

If China can avoid an environmentally caused implosion, and that's VERY big if, it could emerge as a super-power albeit a rapidly aging one. China's fertility rate is well below replacement and the average age of the population is shooting up.

China perspective continued

Much of China's phenomenal growth has been driven by one simple process. The re-deployment of labour from inefficient state farms and factories to efficient private sector facilities. These are often facilities built by foreign companies.

Move someone from a state-run steel foundry to an efficient private sector one and his output is magnified tenfold or more in one day!

I don't want to minimise the Chinese achievement. It may be a simple process but many countries, notably African ones, fail to get it right. The Chinese, once they were free of Mao, did. And they continue to do it on a huge scale.

The redeployment process still has a way to run. I'm speculating here but I think it could result in the Chinese economy tripling in size by 2022. At that point it will be roughly the same size as the US economy today albeit with 4 times the population.

After that I think the easy part is over. You cannot forever grow by re-deployment. You need to innovate and to find better ways of becoming more efficient. And you have to do it with an aging population.

Will the Chinese be able to make the transition from "redeployment led growth" to "innovation led growth?"

My guess is yes. The Chinese Government is certainly aware of the need to encourage indigenous R&D – much more aware than any Australian government – and is doing what it can to build a world class scientific establishment.

However innovation led growth is a slower, more arduous process. Some time in the 2020s I expect Chinese growth rates to drop to those experienced by developed countries –ie 2 – 4% pa.

All this assumes China's environmental constraints can be overcome. That's a BIG assumption. I for one am skeptical. I think food and water constraints are going to hit them hard and soon. They will have to divert resources to improving the efficiency of agriculture and water use.

Bazz,

I doubt the Australian government would let domestic coal companies, no matter who owns them, deprive the local market.

Stevenmeyer said;
>Bazz,
>
>I doubt the Australian government would let domestic coal companies,
no >matter who owns them, deprive the local market.

I guess you are right, except it might be a very big elephant in the room. After all who was it that said;

"We will burn all our coal and then burn yours !"

Steven, an exercise in patience, your link … thankyou. However, it has got nothing to do with the seriousness of reducing GHG emissions. It has much to do with energy resources in general, ‘oil’ in particular.

It is very easy to be cynical, about a myriad of issues – and many people are cynical about climate change. They are as wrong.

You have demonstrated an interest in global affairs and strategic planning, certainly an appreciation of the major players … perhaps in this respect you are frustrated, but you are certainly not cynical.

You are correct (historically speaking) in that “countries do not behave altruistically.” Nevertheless, the time is coming when countries will see the benefits of doing so, for the wider interest that is. It is a slow process (more reason for cynicism?) but movement is occurring, regardless of what the recalcitrant or intransigents parlay.

Regardless of the politics, it is important to be part of the decision making process – here we had the opportunity to show real responsibility (altruism) to the global community – this will be left for another day.

How many millions of years have the planets of every solar system of every galaxy been changing in our microsecond of true time in existence been going on with our help ?
Let me guess ,oh say, nil. So now all of a sudden all the scientific evidence we were told about the great glacier ages that came and went over the history of this blue marble are now our fault ,the less important, and we should and can fix it.
Or was it that we caused it.I like it when i hear about the many that can survive on a day to day basis being the problem of the few that get it all as a right.
It is just not right when they use all of there daily energy to get them to the next day when they should be fixing all the problems that they cause. If people like them are the cause of a sea level rise then why are those million year old reefs so far up the hills even before they got there.
Maybe the fluke that made us smart ,Ha Ha, just came at an opportune moment within a thousand year break in the normal ebb and flow of our blue marble.
Very good old saying was ,In good times prepare for the bad times and in bad times prepare for the good times, but i forgot that we are far more intelligent than the people that made the ice ages.
It is very simple in that we can change and adapt to the will of our world or become some old fossils dug up by a smart and intelligent species. Oh i forgot , they will be the subsistence people that will dig us up and study us to find out what we did to cause this.
We need this marble it does not need us .

We know that we can't stop global warming. Our task is less inspiring; to contain the damage, to keep things from getting out of control. And even that is not easy. For one thing, until recently there's been no clear data suggesting the point where catastrophe looms. Now we're getting a better picture. Scientists believe future centuries will likely face the melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and a subsequent rise in sea level of giant proportion...

Are we ready to change, in dramatic and prolonged ways, in order to offer a workable future to subsequent generations? It's our coming of age moment, and there are no certainties or guarantees. Only a window of possibility, closing fast but still ajar enough to let in some hope.

I just thought I'd add that many of the paths to stabilization run straight through our daily lives, and in every case they will demand difficult changes. Air travel is one of the fastest growing sources of carbon emissions around the world, but even many of us who are noble about changing lightbulbs and happy to drive hybrid cars chafe at the thought of not jetting around the country (or the world).

We drive alone, because it's more convenient than adjusting our schedules for public transit. We build ever bigger homes even as our family sizes shrink, and we watch ever bigger TVs, and -
well, enough said. We need to figure out how to change those habits.

Previous epochal changes of climate, such as the Ice Age that ended 11,500 years ago, were set in motion by natural causes - variations in Earth's orbit that affect the amount of sunlight warming the planet. In those cases, the cycles of cooling and warming unfolded slowly, ever the course of millenia. This episode is different.

Climate is changing more rapidly than ever before. And, human activity is the main cause. Burning of fossil fuels - oil, gas, coal, has flooded the atmosphere with heat trapping carbon dioxide. Unless the carbon dioxide emissions are slashed, the planet will likely heat up even faster, fundamentally changing the world we live in.

We desperately need a government - that will be interested in environmental issues - and investing in alternative sources of energy.