In two recent international news articles about climate change ("How much more proof is needed for people to act" and "Ignoring the future - the psychology of denial"), the importance of facing major issues that will confront the future of the human species were emphasized.
Climate change is indeed an issue that is on everyone's mind today, and while Australia and New Zealand seem to be far removed from the experts who recently made their way to Copenhagen to try to hammer our blueprints to prevent global warming from having a doomsday impact on humankind, these two Pacific Ocean countries, facing Asia to the north and Antarctica to the south will be on the front line of these issues.
Despite most observers thinking that solutions lie in mitigation ideas, there are a growing number of climatologists and scientists who believe that the A-word - adaptation - must be confronted head-on, too. The fact is, despite the head-in-the-sand protestations of climate denialists, we cannot stop climate change or global warming.
The Earth's atmosphere has already passed the tipping point, and in the next 500 years, temperatures will rise considerably, sea levels will rise considerably and millions, even billions, of people from the tropical and temperate zones of the Earth will be forced to migrate north in search of food, fuel and shelter. This is where Australia, and New Zealand in particular, will play central roles.
By the year 2500, New Zealand and Tasmania could be home to millions, even billions, of climate refugees from India and China and other Asia nations who will have migrated south, seeking safe harbor from the devastating impact of global warming in those future times.
Many parts of the Australian and New Zealand coastlines will be under water, and both countries will find themselves home to new kinds of visitors from Asia and Europe. They won't be coming on cruise ships or airplanes, since there will be no fuel for such services. They will be coming by rudimentary sailing vessels and barges. Prepare yourselves.
Australians and New Zealanders must be prepared for the worst-case scenario. By 2500, millions, billions of people will have been forced to leave their home countries in the tropical and temperate zones and migrate south en masse to faraway southern regions to find shelter in United Nations-funded climate refuges in places such as Tasmania and New Zealand. People from India, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan and the Philippines will make their way there, especially to LifeBoat New Zealand. It won't be a pretty picture.
When I asked acclaimed British scientist James Lovelock if such a scenario for Australia and New Zealand was likely, he said in an e-mail: "It may very well happen, yes."
Humans cannot engineer our way out of global warming, although scientists who believe in geo-engineering have offered their theories on how to do it. There are no easy fixes. Humankind has put too many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the result of the industrial revolution that gave us trains, plans and automobiles - and much more to live comfortable and trendy lives - and now there is so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the Earth cannot recover. Forget trying to be more "green" in our daily lives. Australia and New Zealand, like the rest of the world, is now doomed to a very bleak future. There will be millions of climate refugees seeking shelter in Alaska and Canada, of courcse, but also in far south places such as New Zealand, Tasmania and Antarctica as well.Meetings in Copenhagen and Rio de Janiero and at the U.N. building in Manhattan will not stop global warming. What we need to focus on now is preparing future generations for what our world will become in the next 500 years and how best to survive it. The national legislatures of both New Zealand and Australia need to start thinking about these issues, too.
For the next 100 years or so, life will go on as normal in New Zealand and Australia, so don't worry too much. There is nothing to worry about now. For the next 100 years, posh department stores will continue to hawk their trendy items, international computer firms will continue to launch their latest cell phones and tech gadgets, and airline companies will continue to offer passengers quick passage here and there, to the Maldives and to Manhattan, for business and for pleasure. But in the next 500 years, according to Lovelock and otther scientists who are not afraid to think outside the box, things are going to get bad. Unspeakably bad. Those of us who are alive today won't suffer, and the next few generations of humans will be fine, too. The big troubles will probably start around 2200 - Lovelock says sooner - and last for some 300 years or so. By 2500, much of Australia will be uninhabited, although Tasmania will offer safe refuge to climate refugees who make it there, and New Zealand, too. Most of the countries in Africa, Asia, Central America, North America, South America and Europe will be uninhabited, too. Prepare yourselves, o ye who think this is all science fiction. In fact, this is science fact!
We are entering uncharted waters, and as the waters rise and the temperatures go up as well, future generations will have some important choices to make: where to live, how to live, how to grow food, how to power their climate refugee settlements, how to plan and how to pray. Alaska will be on the front lines of this new world. The question is: will Alaska be ready?
• Dan E. Bloom is a former editor of the Capital City Weekly who has been living in Asia since 1991. He can be reached at bikolang@gmail.com.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Alaska must face scenario of 'climate change refugees'
Alaska must face scenario of 'climate change refugees'
By Dan E. Bloom , OPED COMMENTARY
Juneau Empire
In two recent international news articles about climate change ("How much more proof is needed for people to act" and "Ignoring the future - the psychology of denial"), the importance of facing major issues that will confront the future of the human species were emphasized.
Climate change is indeed an issue that is on everyone's mind today, and while Juneau seems to be far removed from the experts who recently made their way to Copenhagen to try to hammer our blueprints to prevent global warming from having a doomsday impact on humankind, Alaska will be on the front line of these issues.
Despite most observers thinking that solutions lie in mitigation ideas, there are a growing number of climatologists and scientists who believe that the A-word - adaptation - must be confronted head-on, too. The fact is, despite the head-in-the-sand protestations of climate denialists such as Marc Morano in Washington, D.C., or former Gov. Sarah Palin, we cannot stop climate change or global warming.
The Earth's atmosphere has already passed the tipping point, and in the next 500 years, temperatures will rise considerably, sea levels will rise considerably and millions, even billions, of people from the tropical and temperate zones of the Earth will be forced to migrate north in search of food, fuel and shelter. This is where Alaska, and Alaskans, will play a central role.
By the year 2500, Alaska could be home to millions of climate refugees from the Lower 48 and Central and South America who will have migrated north, seeking safe harbor from the devastating impact of global warming in those future times.
Many parts of the Alaska coastline will be under water, and Juneau will find itself home to new kinds of visitors from the Lower 48 and beyond. They won't be coming on cruise ships or airplanes, since there will be no fuel for such services. They will be coming by road, on foot and bicycle. Prepare yourselves.
Alaska must be prepared for the worst-case scenario. By 2500, millions, billions of people will have been forced to leave their home countries in the tropical and temperate zones and migrate north en masse to faraway northern regions to find shelter in United Nations-funded climate refuges in places such as Alaska, Russia and Canada. People from India, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan and the Philippines will make their way to Juneau and further north to Anchorage and Fairbanks. It won't be a pretty picture.
When I asked acclaimed British scientist James Lovelock if such a scenario for Alaska was likely, he said in an e-mail: "It may very well happen, yes."
Humans cannot engineer our way out of global warming, although scientists who believe in geo-engineering have offered their theories on how to do it. There are no easy fixes. Humankind has put too many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the result of the industrial revolution that gave us trains, plans and automobiles - and much more to live comfortable and trendy lives - and now there is so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the Earth cannot recover.
Forget trying to be more "green" in our daily lives. Alaska, like the rest of the world, is now doomed to a very bleak future. There will be millions of climate refugees seeking shelter in Alaska and Canada (and in far south places such as New Zealand, Tasmania and Antarctica as well.)
Meetings in Copenhagen and Rio de Janiero and at the U.N. building in Manhattan will not stop global warming. What we need to focus on now is preparing future generations for what our world will become in the next 500 years and how best to survive it. The Alaska Legislature needs to start thinking about these issues, too. There is a very strong possibility that the Northern White House will be located in Juneau, perhaps taking over the Governor's Mansion.
For the next 100 years or so, life will go on as normal in Juneau, so don't worry too much. There is nothing to worry about now. For the next 100 years, the local department stores will continue to hawk their trendy items, international computer firms will continue to launch their latest cell phones and tech gadgets, and airline companies will continue to offer passengers quick passage here and there for business and for pleasure.
But in the next 500 years, according to Lovelock and otther scientists who are not afraid to think outside the box, things are going to get bad. Unspeakably bad.
Those of us who are alive today won't suffer, and the next few generations of humans will be fine, too. The big troubles will probably start around 2200 - Lovelock says sooner - and last for some 300 years or so. By 2500, Alaska will be home to the U.S. Congress, the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, and the Lower 48 will be uninhabited, as will most of the countries in Africa, Asia, South America and Europe.
We are entering uncharted waters, and as the waters rise and the temperatures go up as well, future generations will have some important choices to make: where to live, how to live, how to grow food, how to power their climate refugee settlements, how to plan and how to pray. Alaska will be on the front lines of this new world. The question is: will Alaska be ready?
• Dan E. Bloom is a former editor of the Capital City Weekly who has been living in Asia since 1991. He can be reached at bikolang@gmail.com.
By Dan E. Bloom , OPED COMMENTARY
Juneau Empire
In two recent international news articles about climate change ("How much more proof is needed for people to act" and "Ignoring the future - the psychology of denial"), the importance of facing major issues that will confront the future of the human species were emphasized.
Climate change is indeed an issue that is on everyone's mind today, and while Juneau seems to be far removed from the experts who recently made their way to Copenhagen to try to hammer our blueprints to prevent global warming from having a doomsday impact on humankind, Alaska will be on the front line of these issues.
Despite most observers thinking that solutions lie in mitigation ideas, there are a growing number of climatologists and scientists who believe that the A-word - adaptation - must be confronted head-on, too. The fact is, despite the head-in-the-sand protestations of climate denialists such as Marc Morano in Washington, D.C., or former Gov. Sarah Palin, we cannot stop climate change or global warming.
The Earth's atmosphere has already passed the tipping point, and in the next 500 years, temperatures will rise considerably, sea levels will rise considerably and millions, even billions, of people from the tropical and temperate zones of the Earth will be forced to migrate north in search of food, fuel and shelter. This is where Alaska, and Alaskans, will play a central role.
By the year 2500, Alaska could be home to millions of climate refugees from the Lower 48 and Central and South America who will have migrated north, seeking safe harbor from the devastating impact of global warming in those future times.
Many parts of the Alaska coastline will be under water, and Juneau will find itself home to new kinds of visitors from the Lower 48 and beyond. They won't be coming on cruise ships or airplanes, since there will be no fuel for such services. They will be coming by road, on foot and bicycle. Prepare yourselves.
Alaska must be prepared for the worst-case scenario. By 2500, millions, billions of people will have been forced to leave their home countries in the tropical and temperate zones and migrate north en masse to faraway northern regions to find shelter in United Nations-funded climate refuges in places such as Alaska, Russia and Canada. People from India, Vietnam, Thailand, Japan and the Philippines will make their way to Juneau and further north to Anchorage and Fairbanks. It won't be a pretty picture.
When I asked acclaimed British scientist James Lovelock if such a scenario for Alaska was likely, he said in an e-mail: "It may very well happen, yes."
Humans cannot engineer our way out of global warming, although scientists who believe in geo-engineering have offered their theories on how to do it. There are no easy fixes. Humankind has put too many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the result of the industrial revolution that gave us trains, plans and automobiles - and much more to live comfortable and trendy lives - and now there is so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the Earth cannot recover.
Forget trying to be more "green" in our daily lives. Alaska, like the rest of the world, is now doomed to a very bleak future. There will be millions of climate refugees seeking shelter in Alaska and Canada (and in far south places such as New Zealand, Tasmania and Antarctica as well.)
Meetings in Copenhagen and Rio de Janiero and at the U.N. building in Manhattan will not stop global warming. What we need to focus on now is preparing future generations for what our world will become in the next 500 years and how best to survive it. The Alaska Legislature needs to start thinking about these issues, too. There is a very strong possibility that the Northern White House will be located in Juneau, perhaps taking over the Governor's Mansion.
For the next 100 years or so, life will go on as normal in Juneau, so don't worry too much. There is nothing to worry about now. For the next 100 years, the local department stores will continue to hawk their trendy items, international computer firms will continue to launch their latest cell phones and tech gadgets, and airline companies will continue to offer passengers quick passage here and there for business and for pleasure.
But in the next 500 years, according to Lovelock and otther scientists who are not afraid to think outside the box, things are going to get bad. Unspeakably bad.
Those of us who are alive today won't suffer, and the next few generations of humans will be fine, too. The big troubles will probably start around 2200 - Lovelock says sooner - and last for some 300 years or so. By 2500, Alaska will be home to the U.S. Congress, the White House and the Department of Homeland Security, and the Lower 48 will be uninhabited, as will most of the countries in Africa, Asia, South America and Europe.
We are entering uncharted waters, and as the waters rise and the temperatures go up as well, future generations will have some important choices to make: where to live, how to live, how to grow food, how to power their climate refugee settlements, how to plan and how to pray. Alaska will be on the front lines of this new world. The question is: will Alaska be ready?
• Dan E. Bloom is a former editor of the Capital City Weekly who has been living in Asia since 1991. He can be reached at bikolang@gmail.com.
Gloucester native from "Lifeboat Britain" notes that sadness was prominent at climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009 (sigh): polar cities in our future? maybe!
Gloucester native notes that sadness was prominent at 2009 climate conference
By Terry Weber/Correspondent
Dec. 25, 4009
Rebecca Lordan, a Gloucester native, joined world leaders, students, scientists and activists in Copenhagen at the United Nations Climate Change Conference.Lordan attended the conference as a representative of the League of Woman Voters, and as a citizen concerned about the environment. Home-schooled in Gloucester for about ages 15-18, Lordan attended Wheaton College in Norton, majoring in chemistry, and also studied French and public policy.
Currently, Lordan lives in Le Havre, France, teaching English to middle school children and is applying to graduate schools.
The two-week climate conference, which began Dec. 7, was a United Nations effort to convene world leaders in hopes of forging a treaty that limits greenhouse gas emissions.
Rebecca’s mother, Kathryn Lordan said, “I am so impressed that Rebecca is participating in the health of the world. Margaret Mead once said ‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.’ Rebecca is part of that small group.”
***
Here is Rebecca Lordan’s essay on the Copenhagen conference: My impression of the conference was one of amazement, for a couple of reasons: First, I am amazed by how political climate change is. As I sat in meetings, countries made political statements that seemed fairly innocuous. The more hours I spent sitting there, the more nuances I picked up: words carefully measured and phrases calculated to have the intended political impact large or small. For me, I was frustrated by the formality of these meetings when talking about an issue with such urgency to the lives of millions.
Tuvalu’s representative, Mr. Ian Fry, stood up to address the President of the conference, Mrs. Connie Hedegaard: “...I woke this morning, and I was crying, and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit. The fate of my country rests in your hands.” Governments are talking politics and safeguarding economies while other countries like Tuvalu* are being erased by rising sea levels. How can we be adding up dollars, euros and yen, when others are subtracting square feet of land?
Second, I have been amazed that coverage in the U.S. is so limited since we are one of the most major players in the conference. I have seen more coverage of the holiday shopping on the news than of the Conference of Parties in Copenhagen, although thousands of miles away, this conference was deciding our futures. It’s no wonder that so few people even know the conference is going on. Most of us are only aware of the climate bill, afraid of the impact it will have on our economy.
I sat on the metro with two Mauritanian officials my last day. We struck up conversation and I asked them how their negotiations were going. The response one man gave me made me cry: “The sad thing is that the future of my country and the world is in the hands of a few U.S. senators. The world is waiting for the U.S., then the rest will follow.” All eyes are watching the U.S. But the majority of the U.S. is not watching.
Third, the science is not deniable, but the data and research is being ignored. Although the U.S. will probably only still be an observer of the major effects of climate change in the coming years, many will be victims across the globe. Some nations are already seeing migration and it won’t be long until climate refugees are standing at Ellis Island. What will we say then? Will we wish we did something earlier when the consequences of inaction are in front of our noses or changing our lives? Or will we close our hearts and borders to the humans we are helping to orphan? And should the US be devastated in the coming years by these changes, what will we do? I imagine our pleas will fall on many deaf ears, as their pleas are now.
“Amazed” is one of the only words I can use to describe my feelings right now. As I slowly process the experience of attending the conference, I feel sadness too. It’s true, ignorance is bliss. But when face to face with climate change in years to come, “it was easier not to know” are not words I want to even whisper.
By Terry Weber/Correspondent
Dec. 25, 4009
Rebecca Lordan, a Gloucester native, joined world leaders, students, scientists and activists in Copenhagen at the United Nations Climate Change Conference.Lordan attended the conference as a representative of the League of Woman Voters, and as a citizen concerned about the environment. Home-schooled in Gloucester for about ages 15-18, Lordan attended Wheaton College in Norton, majoring in chemistry, and also studied French and public policy.
Currently, Lordan lives in Le Havre, France, teaching English to middle school children and is applying to graduate schools.
The two-week climate conference, which began Dec. 7, was a United Nations effort to convene world leaders in hopes of forging a treaty that limits greenhouse gas emissions.
Rebecca’s mother, Kathryn Lordan said, “I am so impressed that Rebecca is participating in the health of the world. Margaret Mead once said ‘Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.’ Rebecca is part of that small group.”
***
Here is Rebecca Lordan’s essay on the Copenhagen conference: My impression of the conference was one of amazement, for a couple of reasons: First, I am amazed by how political climate change is. As I sat in meetings, countries made political statements that seemed fairly innocuous. The more hours I spent sitting there, the more nuances I picked up: words carefully measured and phrases calculated to have the intended political impact large or small. For me, I was frustrated by the formality of these meetings when talking about an issue with such urgency to the lives of millions.
Tuvalu’s representative, Mr. Ian Fry, stood up to address the President of the conference, Mrs. Connie Hedegaard: “...I woke this morning, and I was crying, and that’s not easy for a grown man to admit. The fate of my country rests in your hands.” Governments are talking politics and safeguarding economies while other countries like Tuvalu* are being erased by rising sea levels. How can we be adding up dollars, euros and yen, when others are subtracting square feet of land?
Second, I have been amazed that coverage in the U.S. is so limited since we are one of the most major players in the conference. I have seen more coverage of the holiday shopping on the news than of the Conference of Parties in Copenhagen, although thousands of miles away, this conference was deciding our futures. It’s no wonder that so few people even know the conference is going on. Most of us are only aware of the climate bill, afraid of the impact it will have on our economy.
I sat on the metro with two Mauritanian officials my last day. We struck up conversation and I asked them how their negotiations were going. The response one man gave me made me cry: “The sad thing is that the future of my country and the world is in the hands of a few U.S. senators. The world is waiting for the U.S., then the rest will follow.” All eyes are watching the U.S. But the majority of the U.S. is not watching.
Third, the science is not deniable, but the data and research is being ignored. Although the U.S. will probably only still be an observer of the major effects of climate change in the coming years, many will be victims across the globe. Some nations are already seeing migration and it won’t be long until climate refugees are standing at Ellis Island. What will we say then? Will we wish we did something earlier when the consequences of inaction are in front of our noses or changing our lives? Or will we close our hearts and borders to the humans we are helping to orphan? And should the US be devastated in the coming years by these changes, what will we do? I imagine our pleas will fall on many deaf ears, as their pleas are now.
“Amazed” is one of the only words I can use to describe my feelings right now. As I slowly process the experience of attending the conference, I feel sadness too. It’s true, ignorance is bliss. But when face to face with climate change in years to come, “it was easier not to know” are not words I want to even whisper.
Climate refugees in Australia 'inevitable'
Climate refugees in Australia 'inevitable' as world heats up in next 500 years and polar cities are built in Tasmania, New Zealand
Dec 11, 2009
Former government climate change adviser Ross Garnaut says it is inevitable that South Pacific countries will end up having their populations relocated to Australia or New Zealand.
Professor Garnaut says the future of the Pacific islands is only a small part of the world's climate change problem.
Several small Pacific nations are pushing the delegates at the Copenhagen climate talks to sign up to a tougher international agreement than the Kyoto protocol.
But Professor Garnaut says the future of the Pacific islands is only a small part of the world's climate change problem.
He says the islands' residents will end up being relocated to Australia or New Zealand.
"The rest of the world expects that and, in the end, we're likely to accommodate that, so there's a solution there," he said.
"Much more worrying is low-lying populations in the some of the large and densely populated parts of the world, especially the great river valleys of Asia."
He also says it would help the international talks if China made a binding commitment to cut emissions.
The United States says China must make such an agreement if a global deal is to be effective.
Professor Garnaut says China has set ambitious domestic targets to cut emissions, but agrees that it should sign on to an international agreement.
"I think it's likely that China will exceed its domestic targets, the question is not whether they'll get there," he said.
"But the difference it would make to the atmosphere of the international discussions if it bound itself to get there and it would be especially helpful in the United States discussion."
The world's biggest developing countries are calling for developed countries to cut their emissions by 40 per cent.
Negotiators from China, India, South Africa and Brazil reportedly met in Beijing late last month to produce a document that calls for a limit on temperatures rises of two degrees Celsius.
They have called on the major developed countries to slash their emissions over the next 11 years through domestic measures rather than buying so-called offsets in other countries.
Dec 11, 2009
Former government climate change adviser Ross Garnaut says it is inevitable that South Pacific countries will end up having their populations relocated to Australia or New Zealand.
Professor Garnaut says the future of the Pacific islands is only a small part of the world's climate change problem.
Several small Pacific nations are pushing the delegates at the Copenhagen climate talks to sign up to a tougher international agreement than the Kyoto protocol.
But Professor Garnaut says the future of the Pacific islands is only a small part of the world's climate change problem.
He says the islands' residents will end up being relocated to Australia or New Zealand.
"The rest of the world expects that and, in the end, we're likely to accommodate that, so there's a solution there," he said.
"Much more worrying is low-lying populations in the some of the large and densely populated parts of the world, especially the great river valleys of Asia."
He also says it would help the international talks if China made a binding commitment to cut emissions.
The United States says China must make such an agreement if a global deal is to be effective.
Professor Garnaut says China has set ambitious domestic targets to cut emissions, but agrees that it should sign on to an international agreement.
"I think it's likely that China will exceed its domestic targets, the question is not whether they'll get there," he said.
"But the difference it would make to the atmosphere of the international discussions if it bound itself to get there and it would be especially helpful in the United States discussion."
The world's biggest developing countries are calling for developed countries to cut their emissions by 40 per cent.
Negotiators from China, India, South Africa and Brazil reportedly met in Beijing late last month to produce a document that calls for a limit on temperatures rises of two degrees Celsius.
They have called on the major developed countries to slash their emissions over the next 11 years through domestic measures rather than buying so-called offsets in other countries.
1500 underground habitats / installations already exist worldwide: useful for climate refugees and polar city planners?
Leah Says:
"Some 1500 underground habitats / instalations already exist world wide."
Dan asks Leah: :where are they? who owns them? WWII bunkers, what?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE:
Underground Polar Cities: Our Last Defence Against Global Warming?
Mon, Aug 18, 2008
Whether you believe in global warming or not, the world is changing. The areas around the equator are getting hotter, so much so that scientists believe within the next 5 to 8 years equatorial countries will be practically inhabitable by humans. On the other hand, rising temperatures are expected to make usually freezing environments quite a pleasant place to live, predicting a huge migration to more northerly regions.
One journalist/blogger, Dan Bloom, believes that we can take measures to safeguard against global warming by building Polar cities. Citing the work of chemist and inventor, James Lovelock (who first suggested moving to the Poles), Polar cities would provide alternative retreats when the central and middle regions of the Earth become overheated, hostile and less habitable.
Dr Lovelock said: “At six going on eight billion people, the idea of any further development is almost obscene. We’ve got to learn how to retreat from the world that we’re in. Planning a good retreat is always a good measure of generalship.”
Bloom is continuing Lovelock’s work suggesting that a number of high-density, sustainable cities could be created near the Arctic Rim, Antarctica, New Zealand, Tasmania and Patagonia. Yet to be built, Bloom thinks these housing schemes may be a drastic step humankind will need to take to ensure long-term survival.
We’re not entirely sure Polar cities are the best answer though, after all, we’re not so hot on looking after the land we’re living on right now, can you imagine what state the Poles would be in after a mass exodus to them?
LINK
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/polar-cities-global-warming/1779/comment-page-1#comment-288044
"Some 1500 underground habitats / instalations already exist world wide."
Dan asks Leah: :where are they? who owns them? WWII bunkers, what?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE:
Underground Polar Cities: Our Last Defence Against Global Warming?
Mon, Aug 18, 2008
Whether you believe in global warming or not, the world is changing. The areas around the equator are getting hotter, so much so that scientists believe within the next 5 to 8 years equatorial countries will be practically inhabitable by humans. On the other hand, rising temperatures are expected to make usually freezing environments quite a pleasant place to live, predicting a huge migration to more northerly regions.
One journalist/blogger, Dan Bloom, believes that we can take measures to safeguard against global warming by building Polar cities. Citing the work of chemist and inventor, James Lovelock (who first suggested moving to the Poles), Polar cities would provide alternative retreats when the central and middle regions of the Earth become overheated, hostile and less habitable.
Dr Lovelock said: “At six going on eight billion people, the idea of any further development is almost obscene. We’ve got to learn how to retreat from the world that we’re in. Planning a good retreat is always a good measure of generalship.”
Bloom is continuing Lovelock’s work suggesting that a number of high-density, sustainable cities could be created near the Arctic Rim, Antarctica, New Zealand, Tasmania and Patagonia. Yet to be built, Bloom thinks these housing schemes may be a drastic step humankind will need to take to ensure long-term survival.
We’re not entirely sure Polar cities are the best answer though, after all, we’re not so hot on looking after the land we’re living on right now, can you imagine what state the Poles would be in after a mass exodus to them?
LINK
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/polar-cities-global-warming/1779/comment-page-1#comment-288044
"The caring mind does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right questions about the future of the human species."
December 31, 4009
"The caring mind does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right questions about the future of the human species."
- Danny Bloom (1949 - 2032)
"The caring mind does not so much provide the right answers as ask the right questions about the future of the human species."
- Danny Bloom (1949 - 2032)
Associated Press office in Beijing mistakenly calls Edward Milibrand's oped piece in the Guardian an editorial, it was NOT an editorial, it was a commentary, big difference, AP editors in Beijing!
Associated Press office in Beijing mistakenly calls Edward Milibrand's oped piece in the Guardian an editorial, it was NOT an editorial, it was a commentary, big difference, AP editors in Beijing!
GOOGLE THIS!
GOOGLE THIS!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)