The Upside of Global Warming?
by Jasmin Malik Chua, Jersey City, USA on 06.19.07
The AP lets us in on a few tidbits that Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation apparently failed to include:
Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Rust Belt cities might stop losing snowbirds to the South. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand. Mongolia could see a go-go economy.This is all speculative, even a little facetious, and any gains are not likely to make up for predicted frightening upheavals elsewhere. But still ... might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia
As the world warms up and growing crops migrate toward the poles, Canada and Russia are forecast to come out ahead in agricultural gains, as are much of northern Europe and Mongolia. Apparently fishermen in icy Greenland are "thrilled" by the return of cod, while farmers there are reporting higher yields.
In fact, one Hudson Valley apple grower says he's been "betting on it for years" by diversifying his farm with warmer days in mind.
Here's where we play Debbie Downer and point out that caveats abound, however, because too many variables get in the way of making any long-term global forecasts. As the AP notes in one example, a longer growing season won't give farmers any leg up come harvest time if resulting rain patterns lead to drought.
Northern residents who save more on winter heating fuel, says economic professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, will end up forking out more dough than that to cool down in the summer.
The AP continues:
Great Lakes cities might enjoy balmier weather, but could suffer if lower lake levels cut off shipping lanes. And global warming could present deadly new opportunities for parasites and diseaseSome researchers stress there aren't really any winners in global warming because the planet will be such a big loser. Marginal gains in limited areas can't be stacked up on one side of the ledger, they say, when the negatives can include planet-wide food and water shortages, mass flooding and extinction.
"In the end, you don't find really large, really significant benefits," says Michael MacCracken, chief scientist at the non-partisan Climate Institute in Washington. "I mean, loss of biodiversity is an irreversible thing for the planet. Saving a little money on heating in winter areas is a small economic gain for some people. How do you compare that?"
Let's also not forget that rising sea levels and temperatures are fueling super storms, eroding shorelines, shrinking ancient glaciers, bleaching corals, threatening water supplies in much of the developing world, and well on their way to creating millions of climate refugees in the coming decades.
I mean, we may be half-cup-full kind of people around here, but seriously, folks. :: USA Today
See also: :: Global Warming is Good for Russia, :: What's Wrong with Mild Winters, Anyways?, :: The Canary Project: What Global Warming Looks Like, and :: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report
Of course there are going to be positive side effects to global warming. After all, our current climate is not some perfect state of the planet in which all benefit to life is maximized.
The problem is, our current biosphere has evolved and adapted to our present climate (or at least the one we had a few centuries ago). Our cities are built along existing shorelines. Our immune systems are adapted to the present range of diseases and parasites. And so on.
Given a sufficiently long time (who knows how long that is), people and the biosphere will have adapted to whatever the new equilibrium climate is. But in the meantime, things will be bad for a lot of people (and creatures), and good for just a few.
There are going to be benefits to certain regions. Unfortunately, it is going to be primarily for Europe and America - the places which are already suffering are mostly going to get worse - climate-wise. Of course, it will help to wipe out malaria, but it still sucks overall.
I see it didn't touch on the fact that the winter recreation industry is at the beginning of huge problems ahead. Winter started in Mid January instead of late november here in the ottawa valley and as a result some ski resorts had to lay off in some cases 100's of people. Winter clothing isn't being sold on nearly the same scale.
Expand the summer economy lose the winter economy i dont see a gain there just equilibrium. However, there is far more to lose than gain from this.
Not to be anal or anything, but Al Gore uses Keynote, not PowerPoint. :-P
I suspect that you're right. More to loose than to gain if one looks at the net outcome.
One slightly good thing (if the climate has to change) is that it's going to be aircon needs going up while heating needs go down.
It's a lot easier to stick some solar panels on a house and cool it off on a hot sunny day than to use green energy to warm it up on a short, dark, winter one. And over that long, very dark, cold night.
If we had caused the climate to significantly cool we might have shot ourselves in the collective foot even worse.
The so called "good" from climate change for Siberia and Canada will come at the expense of indigenous peoples and benefit mostly the fossil fuel industry, globalized trade, and large agri-business. Siberia and northern Canada are absolutley beautiful in their current, frigid state. These cold lands are habitat for billions of migratory birds, amazing wild mammals, and more. There conversion to a warmer state will involve a transition period of massive wildfires not seen in recorded history. Some upside.
I live in Alaska, and I can tell you that the "silver lining" this AP story refers to isn't all that great: increased wildfire, huge booms in wasp and spruce beetle and leaf miner and budworm populations, stressed trees more susceptible to disease, whole forests dying from infestations, melting permafrost turning tundra into bog and roads into rollercoasters, more drownings every year because what used to be good solid ice on the rivers and lakes (chief transportation system in a largely roadless state) is now rotten from underneath, fish kills in lakes because there's not enough oxygen in the water to sustain them, coyotes and cougars and other predators moving north, polar bears drowning because they can't rest on ice (which isn't there) or moving inland to find game and competing with other bears, parasites moving north, diseases coming north with insects, new plant and insect invasive species mucking up the local ecosystems, more and bigger storms eroding the coastlines and wiping out villages, carbon and methane being released in humongous quantity from previously frozen soils...this story's got it wrong. Global warming is NOT good for the polar regions of the world.
It might also be the case that some part of northern US and Canada might become a desert. EX: Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan.
I have read somewhere that the Canada Prairie region might become a desert if there is no Winter to accumulate some water.
It might also be the case that some part of northern US and Canada might become a desert. EX: Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan.
I have read somewhere that the Canada Prairie region might become a desert if there is no Winter to accumulate some water.
I love animals and well almost every living thing........ and if all those people in greenland would love it to be warmer MOVE! The lives of hundreds maybe THOUSANDS of species may die and they're happy because they saved $100 on their heating bill! Is it worth it? It's not just the animals, it's the people who drowned or starved.... It's almost man/animalslaughter...... And to all those people who won't get up and do something becuase they'll be dead before it gets harsh it may not be you but it's your children, or your grandchildren, maybe even your GREAT-grandchildren..... and you could be killing them.
Oil prices are high but there are other options than killing our planet with global disaster like ethanol. Is a few hundred gallons of oil worth it? No. So if everyone does something little like buying a hybrid or switching to solor or wind power we can start bandaging our wounded world and sending it down the road to recovery......
Okay I'm done. Thank you for your time and I hope a few non-treehuggers read this and do something. Thank you.
The prairies of Canada, where much of the best farmland in the country is, are prone to drought. Living there as I do, it's nice that most days are sunny, but climate change could really make life unpleasant and water conservation vital. Less snow pack in winter and unpredictable rainfall in a grassland region don't equal bumper crops as far as I can tell. Moving northward you run into the Canadian Shield, where there might be more water, but deforestation would be required and it's not exactly clear how great the soil is for crop production. There's only so much more warmth can do anyway, since sunlight is going to be a factor as well and the northern regions might have long days in summer, but the winter days are pretty short. Other notable agricultural land is around Toronto where water resources are already strained and farmland is being turned into suburbia.
I really think MOST of these "benefits" are a stretch. Canada was recently told to keep its snow clean in the north, because apparently dirty snow has already had a huge impact on regional climate variations in the Arctic. Opening shipping lanes would only worsen this trend. I'd also be interested in the explanation for where all this cod off Greenland is going to come from, since the cod industry farther south is famous for its collapse. Warm waters can't just grow more fish which have already been over fished.
It seems ridiculous and almost shallow and immoral to even consider possible benefits when the probable negatives are so great. As was said before, benefits such as those afforded by new shipping lanes will likely come at the cost of indigenous lifestyles we have no right to trample all over. We need to get real and stop looking for the silver lining, at least until we've begun to really deal with the most serious implications of climate change. Millions of refugees, unstable food supplies, unpredictable water resources and resource conflict aren't going to be made up for by these potential benefits. There's so much that can be done that there's no reason for these fluff stories designed to ease our fears or even make us complacent.
There are going to be NO positive side effects of global warming. If we cross 2degC, which we're all set to if we continue business as usual, then there isn't going to be stopping runaway climate change.
Now wonder that the scientists are scared.