of course everyone will have to move, but isn't there a huge amount of land that will become good for agriculture, e.g. siberia, northern america, maybe even some of antarctica?
of course everyone will have to move, but isn't there a huge amount of land that will become good for agriculture, e.g. siberia, northern america, maybe even some of antarctica?
In places where the ground is frozen permanently (permafrost), i.e. most places above the Arctic Circle, there is essentially no decomposition, and hence no soil production. You can often estimate the soil depth by looking at the tree height; the tundra supports no trees, and most of the rest of Alaska has pine and spruce that grow to maybe 5 meters.
The other thing to consider is the effect of heating permafrost, which is well-known. Well. To Alaskans anyway. Houses in permafrost zones are built on stilts, because anything that generates heat will turn the ground beneath it into a bog. If you heat Alaska and Siberia, they will turn into an unimaginable morass (and remain so for the indefinite future) and release gigatonnes of CO2 and CH4. That will wipe out any existing human habitation as well.
In short, I cannot imagine the confusion of ideas that would lead you to suggest such a thing.
what kind of the confusion would lead you to suggesting permafrost occupies most of the siberia and north america? however, your point is correct for antarctica i suppose.
The costs of being energy efficient today outweight the possible risks from having to pay for the consequences.
> The costs of being energy efficient today outweight the possible risks from having to pay for the consequences.
i'm curious, is there any research to back up these claims?
So you have a mismatch of effort: those who can don't have an incentive to fix the problem for those who can't.
(Or have a counter-incentive: I'm reminded of the anti-monsanto anti-gmo fad in the USA -- despite the fact that GMO foods are our best weapon in producing drought resistant crops for regions most heavily affected by those problems!)
However, if we stop the research now (by attacking the researchers through monsanto or by passing oppressive gmo regulation that forces them out of the industry), we will never develop superior drought resistant crops.
I believe that the precise modification of crops will be critical to responding to the stresses of climate. Classical breeding can only help us so much and the true impact of climate stress is still in the future.