New report from CNA, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change - very interesting read would have liked more info on southern hemnisphere.
Printable View
New report from CNA, National Security and the Threat of Climate Change - very interesting read would have liked more info on southern hemnisphere.
Provided that climate change is a naturally occurring phenomena, and even if it's human-caused, reversal of climate change is a fantasy. Preparing for climate change, on the other hand, and the secondary and tertiary effects of it is something we can prepare to deal with.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day and it said. "Global Warming it's the Sun stupid":wry:
Political rhetoric from either side is embarrassing. The fact there is a political debate is disgusting. The scientific, peer reviewed, literature is substantial. I'm not talking your favorite politician who calls themselves a scientist. The fact is that global warming is real, human kind has caused it, and if it go's on unchecked it will be devastating to the world. I get my science from the National Academies of Science and rigorous peer reviewed literature. Not politicians or bumper stickers.
Think about the rhetoric surrounding Iraq. Would you think any other political football would be any different? In my experience the military mind (with the exception of "kill em all's") is crafted for critical analysis and swayed less by emotion than fact.
Much of the literature is available for free to be read online. Here is a link that should bring up a selection of climate change literature.
http://lab.nap.edu/nap-cgi/discover....&GO.x=0&GO.y=0
Selil,
Thanks for saying that. It is simply amazing how far we will go to avoid an issue on substance and turn it into a political free for all.
It is refreshing that the former Chief of Staff of the Army and President of AUSA sat on the advisory panel. The advisors were:
General Gordon R. Sullivan, USA (Ret.)
Admiral Frank “Skip” Bowman, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Lawrence P. Farrell Jr., USAF (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Paul G. Gaffney II, USN (Ret.)
General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
Admiral T. Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Donald L. “Don” Pilling, USN (Ret.)
Admiral Joseph W. Prueher, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
General Charles F. “Chuck” Wald, USAF (Ret.)
General Anthony C. “Tony” Zinni, USMC (Ret.)
Chief findings were:
Quote:
The report includes several formal findings:
Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America's national security.
Climate change acts as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world.
Projected climate change will add to tensions even in stable regions of the world.
Climate change, national security and energy dependence are a related set of global challenges.
TomQuote:
The report also made several specific recommendations:
The national security consequences of climate change should be fully integrated into national security and national defense strategies.
The U.S. should commit to a stronger national and international role to help stabilize climate changes at levels that will avoid significant disruption to global security and stability.
The U.S. should commit to global partnerships that help less developed nations build the capacity and resiliency to better manage climate impacts.
The Department of Defense should enhance its operational capability by accelerating the adoption of improved business processes and innovative technologies that result in improved U.S. combat power through energy efficiency.
DoD should conduct an assessment of the impact on US military installations worldwide of rising sea levels, extreme weather events, and other possible climate change impacts over the next thirty to forty years.
I don't care how many stars have signed on, I still think human-induced climate change is junk science. I formulated my opinion back in '98, when I got stuck with writing the Navy's position on the impacts of the Kyoto protocol on operations and I had to spend hours in brainingwashing sessions with IPCC reps. Their data was suspect then, and it's been spun even more since.
When you look at the recent "findings" coming out of talks in Europe, you'll see it was the diplomats driving the train, not the scientists. And there are plenty of well-respected climatologists who think the whole idea is bunk.
Rant aside, I do think the military has a responsibility for planning for the impacts of weather/climate events, regardless of the cause.
I like the idea of biodiesel with its lack of harmful emissions, renewable availability, its efficiency and it lubricates while it burns, prolonging engine life considerably. How much could be produced and how much it could offset fossil fuel remains to be seen but it has to be coming down the pike. The byproduct can still be eaten by cattle and humans, retaining much of its nutrient load, thus easing fossil fuel use for grain production for beef and human consumption. Canada has millions of idle prairie acres and no doubt a hyrid Canola plant could be easily developed to acclimate to that environment and mature faster. Ethonol is growing fast but I think biodiesel is better. I wonder if China and India are heeding the call for environmental stewardship?
Bio-Diesel from corn is fairly expensive, but you can also make it from grass. Just plain grass clippings. The largest crop in North America is thrown away every weekend. Those grass clippings, the garbage in land fills, and the grass lands all are renewable, natural, energy sources.
I will now invoke the name of an author who should have marct rushing through the door. Jared Diamond has written a book called "Collapse" that discusses in detail the mechanisms and issues with environment that cause civilizations to collapse upon themselves. We're not talking about end of the world, just end of civilization as we know it. Denying the issues does not make them go away. There is a long history of people destroying their environment and then failing to be able to survive.
I don't happen to like the Kyoto Protocol either. And, yes I've read it front to back with much of a headache. The exclusion of China and India from tarriffs was a nail in the coffin for me. You either want to fix the emissions problem or you want to help (economic credits) developing countries with growth. You shouldn't mix the two in a treaty that would likely cause more conflict in the future.
Jared Diamond <sigh>. To paraphrase something once said about Margaret Murray, as an Anthropologist, Diamond is an excellent geographer. The best work I have seen on societal collapse was by Joseph Tainter, and archaeologist. Despite all of he praise heaped on Diamond, I find that he reminds me a lot of the geographical determinists of the 1860's.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Do civilizations collapse, sometimes because of self-induced ecological catastrophes? Of course they do - the Mayan city states and Easter Island are excellent examples. But the radical climate change crowd neglects to point out that global warming started before the industrial revolution, which is the prime agent of evil in their little morality play.
Selil, you are quite correct that "denying the issues don't make them go away". Still and all, while we are undoubtedly in the midst of a fairly radical climate change, although nowhere near as dramatic as the one 12,000 years ago, it is the extrapolations made by the Earth Firsters and other blithering idiots that this is all the fault of the greedy capitalists and the only solution is a "return to nature" (without mentioning the 99% population kill off that would entail) that seem to be dominating the discourse.
Marc
Yet we can't deny the loss of forests in Asia, Africa and S. America, clearly accelerating, human factors that can be plugged into any model. Diamond's projection from the primitive to the complexity of the modern has some merit IMO when the displacement of millions can be quickly enacted via modern war technology. Any ecologically sustainable environment could be seriously disrupted by a massive influx of refugees though to date we have seen nothing truly massive that did irreparable damage to an eco system.
Hi Goesh,
All quite true - I'd never deny that there is a massive climate change going on or that human efforts are not a factor in that change. I just deny that they are the first cause of that change :cool:.Quote:
Originally Posted by goesh
Marc
As a side note, actually getting back to the original version of the topic, the Danish have been doing a lot of work in the military-climate change area.
Marc
I figured invoking Diamond would get a real academics hackles up. That's because his books aren't peer reviewed and much of them are a thought exercises. Unlike a Thomas Kuhn paradigm shift what we see from Diamond is not a change in definition or shift in the generalizations of science, but what Thomas Kuhn warned us about in a shift of perception. Science disciplines exist within a closed culture that determines the validity of the principles being discussed. Governments and individuals may examine science and determine the usability or applicability but to inject that into the process will destroy the foundations of western science.Quote:
Originally Posted by marct
In climatology we know that areas of the world were lush and populous and now are deserted barren and devoid of human habitation. The evidence trumps the argument that humans are incapable of impacting the environment. Once that point is established we're only arguing about how bad the effect will be, and whether somebody has the right to destroy the same eco-sphere that others inhabit.
I look at the issue as more than a greenie versus industrialist. I look at the entirety of the problem and the impacts of particular consumer patterns and industrial trends as national security issues. If the United States became an exporter of oil what would the impact be on the environment and international relations. A new patent recently filed could make the tar oil sands of the Colorado mining region, Oklahoma and Canadian oil sands viable sources of a thousand years more of oil. At pennies of todays costs. That would change the face of the world. What would changes the world view would be a new technology that made oil worthless. What if one of the new technologies like hydrogen made emissions a thing of the past?
Nah, it's not 'cause it's not peer reviewed,it's because it is way to deterministic :D.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Are you talking about the operation of what Kuhn called "normal science"? If so, Diamond's work is within its parameters; at least those of the past 25 years or so. I'm not sure that I would agree with calling it a "closed culture", although it is definitely insular :). Still and all, most of the schools of philosophy of science would tend to agree that any "science" must have some sensory focal point - something hat an observation or hypothesis can be tested against.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Tsk, tsk, tsk - extrapolating from the specific to the general :eek:! Consider, by way of example, the Antarctic continent. We know that it was "lush and populous" and is now barren and deserted. That, in and of itself, is not evidence of anything except that it was once nice and now isn't. Q: Where is the human agency? A: Not there. We also know of specific cases where human agency was the prime cause of ecological disruptions (e.g. Easter Island). The argument should never be that humans are incapable of impacting the environment - only a politician, theologian or 2 year old would ever hold that position. The argument should be that humans, while capable of impacting the environment, are certainly not the sole agency in ecological change (Lucifer anyone? That's a ref to the asteroid not the semi-deity :D). Therefore, once that point is established, we must strive to assign probabilistic degrees of causal efficacy to all identifiable factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Let's leave the question of "rights" for another time <evil grin>.
Actually, we are pretty similar in our outlook. Personally, I am more interested in the relationship between technologies, socio-cultural organization and meaning systems - all of which means that my time horizon, once I'm in full academic mode, tends to be in the 1000's of years.Quote:
Originally Posted by selil
Marc
What's with the polar bears suddenly becoming the poster child for global warming? There is something like fourteen different colonies of polars. 13 are increasing in their population and the other one open for hunting and over hunted as well. I would pick a different species before people start finding this one out.
The earth is, in general, cooling. The earth's surface and atmosphere warm and cool, alternatively, independent of man's influence. Regardless if man has impacted this particular warming cycle, it is useful to see what we can do to react to warming and cooling cycles and how they impact man.
I am just chagrined that we are spending so much political energy on whether or not man can manipulate the earth's environment, and very little on dealing with the warming and cooling cycle's impact on man. I truly believe a "treatment model" is the correct one. The "prevention model" appears to be much more costly, and carries a very high risk of being completely and utterly wrong.
From FoxNews.com: 4/23/07:
" Report: Sheryl Crow's Solutions to Global Warming
Monday, April 23, 2007
E-MAIL STORY RESPOND TO EDITOR PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
Americans may be using less toilet paper, if Sheryl Crow has her way.
The singer, who is crossing the country on a biodiesel bus with producer Laurie David, proposes limiting toilet paper use as one solution to global warming, according to a Washington Post report.
"I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming," she wrote April 19 on the Biodiesel Bus blog, according to a report by the Washington Post. "Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating."
Her toilet paper manifesto would limit how many squares of toilet paper Americans use in a sitting.
Click here to read the Washington Post report.
"Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required," she wrote. "
So beware the TPP (toilet paper police). You may be at a mall, get nabbed over an anonymous tip from an angry family member for using too much toilet paper and be dragged into the restroom and there made to drop your pants, bend over, spread the cheeks for a FMRAS (fecal matter residual assessment scan) and fined accordingly. Ms. Crow needs to stick to singing, which she ain't too bad at IMO and leave environmental policing to those agencies that bust people for dumping toxic chemicals in the backcountry. Next we all may be forced to take monthly trips to the zoo to pet whales and dolphins and apologize to them for earth abuse.
She needs to stay awhile in Southeast New Mexico. We eat green chili on everything. She'll back off the one square a visit real quick. She can't be serious. Next thing you know they are going to go after the toilet paper manufacturers. Big mistake in my book. If they are wrong about toilet paper than surely they have to be wrong on such important issues such as war and peace. Talk about being out of touch. No pun intended.
I'd must admit that I think it is probable that the global climate might be heating up, the theory makes sense. But it is difficult to take the claim seriously with Al Gore leading the charge, I mean, was the earth heating up during the Clinton Administration? According to what I've read, it was, and nary a word from Al Gore during that time frame.
If we were in a crisis, I tend to think that more prominent voices within the realm of science would speak out. If a meteor was hurtling through outer space and was going to impact the earth, do you think scientists would remain as silent as they are on global warming?
The question really is; what is causing the warming?
Interesting point SSG Rock,
So who would be acceptable as a spokesman? And, Al Gore has been an environmental Nazi since the 70's.
So MANY scientists have spoken out from the most prestigious portions of science and they are naysayed because they're not necessarily the right spokesman.
Perhaps the National Academies of Science is good enough?
Understanding Multiple Environmental Stresses: Report of a Workshop
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11748
How about a discussion about the discussion?
Review of the U.S. Climate Science Program's Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2, "Best Practice Approaches for Characterizing, Communicating, and Incorporating Scientific Uncertainty in Climate Decision Making"
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11873
The actual book that is often cited (incorrectly) by both sides of the discussion is an interesting read.
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676
The common thread is that no one is listening to the scientists. HUNDREDS of peer reviewed literature articles say global warming is real, humans are a big part of it, CO2 sucks, and people say "I really don't like that scenario so I'm going to ignore you and find somebody who gives me a different answer".
Of course, Mr Gore's only a Nazi when the rules don't apply to him. Shame he can't cut his own conspicuous consumption to help out. And no, I don't consider carbon offsets to be the same thing. He's only paying the Yuppie "feel good" fee and not actually reducing HIS part in the whole thing.
Before we get too distracted, let's remember the chain of events that eventually led to the fall of the Roman Empire. A lot of things were involved, of course, but the various hordes moving west out of Central Asia into Roman territory was a significant factor by any assessment or interpretation.
The tribes were migrating west because of a change in the ability of the land in Central Asia to support crops, which in turn supported the horses and nomads.
This change in the carrying capacity of the land was due to a 2-3 degree change in year-round average temps.
If climate change was a significant factor in the fall of the Roman empire, shouldn't the guardians of the U.S. pay attention to climate change?
Climate change around the Aral sea in the past 20-30 years provide a great case study in impact of humans on the environment. The secondary and tertiary effects are of special interest, particularly the issues surrounding potable water.
The Little Ice Age was an average drop in temperature of less than 1 degree Celsius over an extended period of time and came and went over several centuries. This period was preceded by the Medieval Warm Period, which occurred during the same time as the increased solar bustle called, The Medieval Maximum; a period of global warming. Most of what we are measuring today is normal Earth doing what Earth does. Change. Of course, Man isn't helping matters much. But Man isn't going to stop it either. Lets put it into perspective. A single huge volcanic eruption can and has caused more damage to the atmosphere to enhance global warming than man made pollution combined. Global warming may in fact be occurring. But we are powerless to change it. What I find ironic on a personal level is Gore accusing the President of playing on our fears. What is Gore doing again? All I know is what Krakatoa must have done to the atmosphere. You really can't blame the scientists. It is sort of over their heads no different than so-called medieval scientists were over their heads with such practices as "bleeding" as a procedure to cure plague. Sensationalism makes a headline and it is the alarmists that lead the pack. Most alarmists are not true scientists. They are shameful opportunists like Al Gore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Van
The graph below is the data from several different studies shows the mean temperature changes over the last 2,000 years. The Little Ice Age squarely beats both the Medieval Warming Period and the current warming period combined.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Comparison.png
About trusting "scientists".
I'm 43, and every 5 years or so, there is a new "the sky is falling!" scenario that is trotted out by a large group of peer-reviewed literature supported scientific group or another.
And before my lifetime, Eugenics was widely accepted by scientists the world over. Does that make Hitler and Margaret Sanger right?
Scientists are complete incompetents when faced with the "Revenge Effect". They appear to be unable to gauge the real effects of their suggested solutions to even the problems they correctly identify.
Even if mankind has caused completely this latest warming trend, I can state with 100% certainty that there is no politically practical solution that can be effected by man. And it's time for the pin-headed scientific types to both understand or realize this... except there is Big Money in shouting that "The Sky is Falling!"
Agreed. But are these true scientists devoted to the scientific method? I notice that lone wolf scientists usually step forward and debunk these groups of alarmists.Quote:
Originally Posted by 120mm
Quote:
Originally Posted by 120mm
Equating climate change science to eugenics?
I think he is implying flawed conclusions presented as scientific fact.
I think it is a plot by the Navy to get funding for "sea-basing" concepts!
Does it matter what caused climate change or how big the bozos are on either side of the science? How is climate change going to impact small wars?
The phrase of the day is "potable water"... Again, look at the Aral sea, Turkish control of a couple of key rivers, or who controls Bangladesh's water supply. Climate change is only going to aggravate competition for this critical resource.
From another angle; could you picture the U.S. going to war in South America to prevent destruction of the rainforests (a key but under-reported piece of the climate change picture)? CNN got the U.S. into Bosnia and Somalia; this scenario isn't too far fetched, especially if it looks like it will sell media time.
In all cases, small wars could- are even likely to- result from climate change. I've named four, but I've only got a small brain. Are their any others that pop out at folks smarter than me (most of y'all)?
Selil - It was a comment about trusting Scientists' conclusions. And as Human Caused Climate Change "Science" is operating within such a complex system, I think there is a Very Large Chance that "science" (whateverthehellthatis) could be wrong.
And if they are right, the cure appears to be worse than the disease. Guaranteed total planetary economic collapse and social destruction through "scientific intervention", designed to prevent "possible" planetary economic collapse and social destruction through climate change doesn't sound like a sane bet to me.
I think it makes better sense to prepare for the aftershocks of whatever warming or cooling "effects", and that brings us back to Small Wars. It is "possible" that as climate change occurs, that entire nations will leave their foxholes and motorpools and invade others, but I believe it is more probable that Small Wars will be the wave of the future, as both state and non-state actors attempt to migrate and/or control limited resources.
I might be a little unsettled by the egalitarian use of "pin heads" to describe scientists. Would you like the professional courtesy of being referred to as a soldier and warrior? Or would you prefer thick crainally ridged neolithic skin encased protein rejecting protoplasm?
Science isn't really about the answers. I know you think you've got a tiger by the tail, but science is about the questions. The hypothesis of a question and knowing the right question to ask. Delving into the question and finding answers in the real world for problems or defining intriguing issues is what science is about.
Tilting at scientists like windmills doesn't serve the dissemination of ideas and the discussion of issues any more than saying the current members of the United States members of the military are as effective as Sadam Hussein at killing kurds without the WMD's. Gross generalities suck.
That which you don't understand "I think there is a Very Large Chance that "science" (whateverthehellthatis) could be wrong" is an unsupported argument and that which you criticize science about. The rampant politicization of science has created fallow ground of ideas, a hostile terrain for science, and a barrier to dissemination. "Why won't Dr. Johnny go to war" because "pinheaded" Army types are to busy burying their collective heads in the sand to have a golly gee moment.
If you don't understand the science learn. If you don't agree structure the argument in such a way we can have a dialog. I could point out all of the logical fallacies in your argument, and I could drag you kicking and screaming across the burning embers of sarcasm. Likely you'd still disagree in the face of evidence. And, at some point you'd be walking into an ambush of your own ignorance.
Which is why scientists who'd rather be arguing about misspellings, and the treatments of the word "is", run around yelling their fool heads off. Since science is actually a dialog and few people understand the scientific process is a discussion, people expect answers. Science attempts to define the world around us but that interpretation is up for debate. Pluto planet or not? That which we can observe and define can be created by many things. The car doesn't work right but is it spark, air, compression, or fuel?
Climate change is real, end of story. We can measure it's effect, we can tie it to human beings, and we can offer options. People not scientists often jump to conclusions like "Hybrid" vehicles, but a scientists looks at the entire energy costs and says "WHOA!", because if you flex fuel an old chevy suburban it is still cheaper in total energy during it's likely life time than the partial creation costs of ONE hybrid vehicle replacement. Never mind running the Hybrid for any amount of time.
Climate change occurs naturally as the creeping sands of several deserts attest to (measurable and substantiated real world evidence). Las Vegas is a travesty of modern engineering without water. Lake Meade is drying up. Will it fill to it's former level anytime in the future? Science can postulate and theorize but NO good scientists will says categorically yes or no. Politicians do that.
It's bad science to take a specific and postulate a genearality. Much like you're argument about trusting scientists take "alleged" specific incidents and applies them to science in general. Should we take Abu Gharib prisoner abuse and apply that to the military in general as an expectation of behavior?
The military should very much care about climate change. The one commodity people will kill for fairly quickly is water. Climate change has dramatic effects on the location and dispersement of water. "Polarization" factors are "theorized" to account for dramatic flooding events, and devastating typhoon and hurricanes. The erosion of Coriolis factors in the atmosphere by changing wind patterns seem to account for the colder winters and hotter summers.
Finally don't forget the DOD thinks it's important too. The one branch of the military peopled almost exclusively by officers is NOAA. Weather has been an essential element of the military since the first guy whacked his neighbor with a stick. Forget the smarmy "Water World" pronouncements of Hollywood. When a real scientist talks about climate change, warming, green house gasses, and the heat capture effects of diminishing polar ice they're not thinking military necessity. That's what we (Like the politicians) need to do. How would the world change with an open sea route North of Canada to anywhere in the world? What effect would new warm water ports have on the Russian states commerce? Mosquito larvae normally killed in the winter suddenly surviving start spreading new diseases? Central South Dakota and North Dakota in the Red River Region (Watertown, etc..) suddenly sprout an ancient inland sea decreasing crop land by 20 percent for the nation?
See science is about the questions.
Posted by Van:
I think it does matter, and where it matters is the effect. Its a question of resources & effort and where do you apply them. US resources applied to counter climate change are different from applying US resources to countering the effects of climate change. I think this is why the argument for continuing to focus on GWOT.Quote:
Does it matter what caused climate change or how big the bozos are on either side of the science? How is climate change going to impact small wars?
I beleive all will agree that climate change (regardless of its origin) is going to effect people - and we have to work towards understanding those effects, and preparing for them. Reducing human acceleration of climate change can buy us more time in dealing with the problem, but how much?
Regards, Rob
Posted by Rob Thorton:
Fair enough, but applying resources to counter climate change is generally for diplomatic, informational, and economic instruments of power. The relevance of climate change to the military instrument of national power is in the conflicts that will be triggered or aggravated by the effects of climate change.Quote:
US resources applied to counter climate change are different from applying US resources to countering the effects of climate change.
What conflicts will be initiated or shaped by climate change?
Aside from theremark (we prefer the term "knuckle-dragger"), Selil pretty much nailed the concepts of the relevance of climate change.Quote:
would you prefer thick crainally ridged neolithic skin encased protein rejecting protoplasm?
The military can't afford to go around crying "Make it didn't happen!" like a 3 year old or the main stream news, the military has a duty to deal with the effects and anticipate future impact.
Other than his artificial division of "science" and "politics", I happen to agree with the substantive part of what Selil says. Science has never existed in a vacuum and is not an end unto itself.
The earth appears to be warming, and dealing with that warming is "job security" for the COIN types.
BTW - Selil, that was some post. Some day when I have time I would love to discuss how the division between science-philosphy-religion is artificial and weakens them all. But now, I am busy and must be guilty of "drive-by" posting.
Hi 120,
Sounds like a wonderful way to kill many jugs of beer :D. Just to toss in my 0.0182 cents worth (aka .02 CDN), I wold have to say that you need to add in basic meta-epistemological stances into that discussion and look for correlations at the cultural level.Quote:
Originally Posted by 120mm
On to it's effects on small wars...
Why don't we try and develope a list of key strategic resources taking off on Van's start with potable water?
If I was tossing one together, it would include:
Each of these resources should also have "or means of their production" added to them.
- Potable water
- Food supplies
- Medical supplies
- Weaponry
- Transportation
- Electronics / communications
- Social "replication" (including both replicating the members of the society [e.g. kids], and their education)
- Structures of interpretation / meaning (i.e. how do we understand all of this?)
We also might want to look at developing a causal typology of "displacement". So, for example, a 10' rise in sea level would cause a mass exodus from Bangladesh, unless certain non-military actions take place (think BIG dikes!). This is a different scenario from the displacements in Darfur or Iraq, or from the American South in the early 1950's and the Rust belt in the 1980's
We might also consider possible scenarios of "good" coming from massive population displacements and try and develope pre-emptive scenarios. For example, Canada happens to have the largest reserves of potable water in the world and, also, a very low population density:
Canada USAt the moment, just from personal observation, our winters have gotten warmer and our summers have gotten cooler.
area: 3,854,085 sq mi 3,718,695 sq mi
population
(2007 est.) 32,915,600 301,747,000
Population
density: 8.54 people / sq mi 81.14 people / sq mi
PD rank: 219 172
If we were to see increasing desertifictation in the US, which we are, would we have a flow of US "refugees" across our border?
What if we were to look at South Africa instead?
Marc