Climate Change

[butterfly]

Hi:) I'm fairly new to political theory but feel I have a decent understanding of Climate Change and it's impact on humankind's ability to survive (vast desertification, rising sea levels, acceleration due to North Atlantic permafrost etc.) I have previously asserted that 'human nature' is not competative but what will the response be to extensive global food, water and other resource shortages? Assuming that the accelaration is as predicted, climate change may be irreversible in the next 15-20 years.
I feel that many people will gain a mentality similar to that which was seen in the cold war (That is, not the anti-communist mentality, but the 'lets hoard vast amounts of resources to ensure our own survival' mentality).
It is concerning because I think this would result in much more inequality.
I'm in high school so please tell me if this interpretation is wrong.
I am especially eager to learn so any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

[Lynx]

Climate change will require adaptations in many areas (infrastructure, agriculture, water supply, insurance, energy use) and will cause mass migrations. The wealthier nations are in a better position to adapt to these changes. People in poor countries will suffer more.

[Sendo]

it will only get worse because the problems of urban congestion and depletion of natural resources and fuel costs will make companies pollute and externalize even more.

Externalize = force private costs onto the public. Like dumping waste mercury in a reservoir.

[butterfly]

Thanks Lynx and Sendo. Do you think this would be the catalyst for revolution or derail it? Also what do you think of population reduction? It seems the only long-term solution...but it's certainly something I have trouble bringing up in general conversation...

[Black Sheep]

Do you think this would be the catalyst for revolution or derail it?
This is a very interesting question, i had never thought about it..

It would be a very good trigger for the revolution,but is a bit dangerous. People will focus on their survival in extreme circumstances, and a too straightforward action of communists could strike to the people as 'taking advantage of the terrible circumstances'.Maybe i need to think this through.

[Lynx]

Do you think this would be the catalyst for revolution or derail it?
It might prompt more people to seek more radical solutions, but not necessarily socialism or communism. Without working class consciousness, people's desperation could go in several directions, even to alternatives that would lead to further disaster.


Also what do you think of population reduction? It seems the only long-term solution...but it's certainly something I have trouble bringing up in general conversation...
Most effective means of population reduction is a reduction in poverty, free access to family planning (contraceptives, abortion) and social change (eg. the Quiet Revolution in Quebec - once the catholic church was removed from power, the birthrate dropped from the highest in North America to the lowest)
The population has grown because of improved access to antibiotics, vaccination and safe drinking water. This has resulted in increased lifespan with a reduction in child mortality. Until and unless there is a population crash, it is safe to assume that the Earth is capable of supporting that many people. Advances in agricultural production have kept pace with demand, although there are problems with distribution (the 'free market' can't do much for people who have no money).

Longer term, the population will either stabilize at a sustainable level, or crash. I'm optimistic a crash can be avoided.

[butterfly]

I had never thought about the fact that poverty reduction would equate to population reduction... and admire your optimism. I guess what's most alarming is the predicted time span, which I understand is questionable. Last time there were such variations in our climate the earths population dropped from 1million to 30,000 and it happened rapidly. We are watching the Labour govn't of Australia bow their heads to corporate interests. Instead of investing in solar, wind or geo-thermal, they're investing in clean coal, which is, to use a quote from Sendo ' Like dumping waste mercury in a reservoir'... after turning it to gold that is.:rolleyes:
With a predicted population rise to 9billion by 2040 can our climate really afford to have everyone living like we do in Germany, the US and Australia? Personally I think to have a sustainable and equal global society we desperately need to rethink how we live. We are going to die out if 9billion people are driving cars everyday. Optimism is something I have yet to grasp.

[Lynx]

I'm optimistic that billions of people won't die of malnutrition in a short period of time, resulting in a population crash. I'm not optimistic about our profligate lifestyle. It is not scalable to include 6 billion people, let alone 9 billion, and there is doubt if it is sustainable for the minority who enjoy it now. Current technology is too inefficient, and too limited. And 'externalities' like pollution have been allowed to continue for the sake of profit. I'm not optimistic our so-called leaders will change their policies or their priorities. They haven't changed them in response to global warming.

Unless the Earth goes the way of Venus, humans will adapt. In that I have faith.