What Will Mark The Beginning of The End Of Global Trade? - Climate Change.
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 10.22.07
Few of us have thought much about the trade implications of climate change-induced coastal flooding. World Watch has clarified it for us. Flooded ports: all done. That's why they're called World Watch. Good stuff.
Cities around the world are facing the danger of rising seas and other disasters related to climate change. Of the 33 cities predicted to have at least 8 million people by 2015, at least 21 are highly vulnerable, says the Worldwatch Institute.They include Dhaka, Bangladesh; Buenos Aires, Argentina; Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Shanghai and Tianjin in China; Alexandria and Cairo in Egypt; Mumbai and Kolkata in India; Jakarta, Indonesia; Tokyo and Osaka-Kobe in Japan; Lagos, Nigeria; Karachi, Pakistan; Bangkok, Thailand, and New York and Los Angeles in the United States, according to studies by the United Nations and others.
More than one-tenth of the world's population, or 643 million people, live in low-lying areas at risk from climate change, say U.S. and European experts.
Just as an aside: how long before some cable talk show pundit equates coastal flooding with religious prophecy? We can wait.
Via:: Yahoo News. Image credit::Gerwitz, "The Great Flood of Chitchen Itza" - a photo-shop fantasy.
Err... slightly over the top post with minimal new information. If we talk too doom and gloom, people will run man!
=== author's response follows ====
Agree in principle with your point.
My idea was to narrow from "flooded cities" to "trade ports" to appeal to the business mindset.
Try peak oil AND climate change. The best projections seem to put peak oil in 2010, if we're not already there, but the key will be when markets realize it is coming.
There is a good primer here:
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php
Yes, more "doom & gloom". Gotta scare the kiddies and undereducated into action, right?
Everytime I read these kinds of articles, I notice they always fail to point out that even if the waters rise as much as is estimated, it will take 50 to 100 years to rise a few inches (obviously each locale is different). Surely it will not be the "Noah's flood" that is shown by that scare tactic (and horribly photoshopped) graphic preceding the article.
Although I realize the title of this website is "Trehugger" and not "Environmental Scientist", it would do us all good to backup these sensationalized articles with some well intentioned optimism, if not a slight bit of fact. From that link aobve:
"Although natural disasters are often presented as rare and unexpected tragedies, the reality is that they now occur more frequently..."
Baloney. We are seeing a naturally occurring influx of hurricanes - but no other natural disaster is showing world-wide increase. That's just not factual! Earthquakes are not happening biblical-style, that's absurd. Could they be more vague about which natural disasters?
These scare tactics and false data do use no good, it just makes the environmental movement a political pissing match. Stick to the facts, and optimistic action, PLEASE?
When are the super-rich going to start buying huge expanses of land here for public parks and
natural beauty?
Greenpeace UK estimates rising sea levels to be about 1 foot a year with Greenland melting at its current rate... Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's simple Newtownian Physics... this is not doom and gloom, this is emergency management.
agreed, Peak Oil & Climate Change. Peak Oil is set to hit us way before climate change ever will in a big way. PO if it hits us now will cripple us, even if we have 10 years it is going to be damaging with all our food and 700mil cars etc etc needing oil. trade requires an economy, economy requires growth, growth requires energy.
Boone Pickens has said over and over, 85mil b/day is all we have, this quarter we hit 88. things are going to get tough from right about now. i get the feeling Climate Change, tho very important, is going to take a back seat soon.
anyhow, point being trade has a bigger enermy than Climate Change, CC is humans long term threat. i find it ironic and charming that both these issues with PO and CC have the same end goal of ditching fossils.
I think one of the best-case scenarios for spurring action against climate change would be a massive ice break-up in Antarctica. If sea level jumped six feet overnight, people would get the message.
I'm not sure why Los Angeles is on the list. If you take a look at the elevation of Los Angeles, it would take a fairly substantial rise in sea level, more than 5 meters, before you started to see any significant amount of flooding there. San Francisco is far more in danger from sea level rise than LA.
As are washington and boston, I don't really know about LA.
To DB Burns- Just the greenland ice sheet melting or falling into the ocean will raise the sea level in the order of meters, not inches. The entire sheet would have an impact of 7.2m. This could take a century or two, but the estimates of time keep getting pushed forward.
=== author comment ===
The rising level has only to innundate the sewerage plant or cut under-bridge clearance, for example, to disrupt port functioning
I think that issues like this are very important and worthy of debate. This link leads to a for-pay article.
Has anyone considered the implications of improved technology in these sorts of debates? Natural disasters sweep cities all of the time and I don't know if flooding would be able to shutdown trade or would it displace / shift trade to different cities?
I would second Bobster and other commentators that emphasize the links between crises like peak oil and climate change. I would add fresh water exhaustion, economic inequality.
Speaking of solutions...what about local purchasing, technological changes, population control...these lead to holistic views. Can this be met through corporate social responsibility or Corporate Obligations?
Can fair trade help in situations like this? A list of Fair Trade Products