UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.
Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″

He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″

He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.

UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.

Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.

Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.

The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said

The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.

This was the prediction in 1987-8 it is nothing more than to scare the population and not solve one human problem.

Canem,
>Africa - 7 children per female, population 1.3 billion
>India - 4 children per female, population 1.3 billion
Struth, if you believe that to be the case, no wonder you're so alarmed!
But you can relax - fertility rates are no longer anywhere near that high.

When Malthus referred to arithmetic and geometric growth, he was referring to linear and exponential growth respectively. His point was that if resources are abundant, human population is capable of growing exponentially. He did not claim such growth to be inevitable. And if you look at modern fertility rates, you'll see that human behaviour has changed. The countries with very high fertility rates aren't those with abundant resources; it's those hit by war or famine. People have large numbers of children to ensure some of them will survive long enough to give them grandchildren.

If you think my view is negligent then it's probably due to your poor comprehension, for I'm not claiming that's the only reason for above-replacement fertility rates, nor that high fertility rates aren't a problem. But the problem's already being addressed, and stopping population growth will not be sufficient to solve our other environmental problems.

And finally, the availability of nuclear power destroys the argument that "humans shouldn't live outside of the tropical zone due to the higher energy requirements" although even without nuclear power that argument would be very dubious.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Josephus,
You seem to be sorting to strawmen again. Can you name even one of these "climate zealots" who want to ban gas energy to developing countries? ITYF they're imaginary!

And where do you get the idea that "There is insufficient copper and aluminium in the world to give everyone wind and solar power"? The ore is abundant and the metals will be produced to meet demand.

Aiden said- The countries with very high fertility rates aren't those with abundant resources; it's those hit by war or famine. People have large numbers of children to ensure some of them will survive long enough to give them grandchildren.

Answer- I would argue that war and famine is caused by high birth rates perhaps Aiden is arguing the opposite.

Aiden said-

>Africa - 7 children per female, population 1.3 billion
>India - 4 children per female, population 1.3 billion
Struth, if you believe that to be the case, no wonder you're so alarmed!
But you can relax - fertility rates are no longer anywhere near that high.

Answer- Yes fertility rates are a moving target. 1.3 Billion people is too many people for a country the size of India (Africa's birth rate is higher than India). They still have a growth rate that is above replacement on a land area that is beyond capacity. Therefore the Indian Government (also South America) is attempting to offshore their management issues. This transfers onto other countries in the form of poverty, alienation, etc.

In 2003 according to the CIA world fact book India had half its population under the age of 15- this is apparently the current situation in Africa. Too little was done in 2003 to address the issues and now massive immigration is occurring to alleviate the inevitable lack of economic opportunities in India. Sixteen years later these under fifteens (in four or more children families) are moving out of home and starting homes of their own. You can imagine the crush as three or more homes try to occupy the space of one in such a short time frame. When children are young they don't require on average the same resources as adults- so you don't realize the impact on the community.

If there was less people in India then Indian people wouldn't perhaps have the impetuous to move away from their birthplace.

At least Aiden seems to admit that lack of foresight seems to have caused permanent damage to the environment.

But it appears Aiden just doesn't believe in reducing the population of the world even for the environment.

The GOP says- the Democrats never do anything... But population growth is also the fault of the GOP Economic Liberals.

Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them...