Hacker News Reader

Comment by criddell | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if there are some countries that will see a net benefit from global warming?

There's a joke that Czechia will have access to the sea

Most (very) cold countries actually. This will require adjustments (like for Canada with its wildfires) but over time these cold countries shall (net) benefit.

Their biggest problem will be dealing with all the climate refugees that show up at their borders.

Russia.

this comment ignores massive detriment -- forest fire alone will cause unsolveable damage.

However, they should gain access to warm-water ports, which seems to be a huge upgrade in terms of economy and geopolitics. (1)

1 - https://youtu.be/v3C_5bsdQWg

I live in Wisconsin, a northern US state that you'd think would benefit from warmer temperatures. But we've spent all summer under the smoke of Canadian wildfires, and we're also experiencing drought conditions, which is obviously not good for farming.

Also known as the country who is vehemently for global warming

A very significant part of Russia is permafrost. As climate gets warm, more of permafrost land is melting. It's not really clear the consequences of this process. It releases trapped CO2, it changes ecosystems, it transforms solid land into a swamp.

I'm not claiming that you're not correct. Cold climate requires spending truly enormous energy and resources to heat people, to build warm houses, to craft warm clothes. Cold climate harvests very lesser amounts of wheat and other plants and animals. This is extremely big part of equation.

There's a fun youtuber called vagabond, who train hops around Russia and Europe. He had a video showing buildings build on permafrost. They lift the buildings up off the ground so none of the heating heat touches the ground and weakens the foundations. I fully expect if the permafrost goes soggy, most of the settled north will just sink into the bog.

Swamp is still easier to work with than ground which is frozen solid.

If someone is wondering why: much of Siberian land is difficult to develop due to permafrost. 65% of Russian territory, which comes up to 11.1 km2, is permafrost. Almost all of it is owned by the state/military and they probably couldn't give less of a fuck about any negative consequences.

Depressingly, the north Atlantic pass comes to mind.

Scotland maybe?

Canada?

Well except we'll have no trees because they all burned down, but otherwise sure.

It's going to require some changes on how forests are maintained, but there will still be trees in Canada. In countries which are warmer and drier, they clean their forests and build large alleys so that a wildfire may be contained to a smaller area.

This will require some investment, but there are other areas where it's clear that Canada is going to become a large beneficiary of global warming.

I work with a startup who are thinking about this exact thing:

https://www.earthforce.io/

They're well funded, very very experienced founders, and working on great stuff! Fingers crossed.

there are thirty of these at least, including EU. The more the merrier, its an ugly situation

source-- CNR Berkeley

These folks are working towards Roomba forest management, is that the general thesis you're seeing?

We'll also get all the USA climate (weather and political) migrants to use as cheap labor in maple syrup mines.

People thought that until a few months ago.

Ireland ?

Won't it mean it will rain even more?

But yeah, I read about people fainting and dying of the heat all over Europe, and meanwhile I'm sitting in Ireland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nshTBTnHFMw

Yeah we get all the tropical storms battering us year round, like the one this past week, and warming might mean they get more intense. plus its not like global warming means we get more sun during the bleak winters. Maybe germany and poland will benefit more then us.

There is no benefit to life from anthropogenic climate change anywhere on Earth. 350 ppm of CO2 was the perfect balance that life is made for.

We are up to about 420 ppm of CO2 now. We raised it 70 ppm in less than 200 years. Unreal.

Any interesting links around why 350 is the target? I searched and everyone keeps quoting the same climate guru without any reasoning behind why that number specifically was chosen.

CO2 was below 400 PPM for the last 5 million years and around 350 PPM was the last 100 000 years. It's just the number the nature stabilized at, before human civilization changed it.

Historically life endured all kinds of PPM up to 2000 and above. So probably nature will adapt.

Why is 350ppm the perfect concentration? Higher is better for plants, because most are carbon limited, for example. The Carboniferous era, whose biosphere sequestered so much carbon, had far higher concentrations.

I’m not disagreeing, but that seemed like a statement out of the blue.

Are you sure you didn't mean 250 ppm? That's a lot closer to what it was 200 years ago. 350 ppm is around 1990 levels and it is hard to see how 1990 levels would be what life was made for.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com