• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

A Billion People Exposed to Climate Change Effects

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Occams Barber, Jun 12, 2019.

  1. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +1,778
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    ABC News, 12/6/2019

    tl:dr
    • A billion people will be impacted by Climate Change
    • Around 2/3rds will be from the Asia Pacific
    • Expect instability and possible conflict
    • Expect many refugees

    Nearly a billion people facing high exposure to climate change effects, Global Peace Index finds

    Nearly a billion people are facing climate change hazards globally, with the Asia-Pacific region housing twice as many people living in areas with high exposure than all other regions combined, a new report has revealed.

    In the annual Global Peace Index released on Wednesday, the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP) said an estimated 971 million people — including more than 2.4 million Australians — live in areas with high or very high exposure to climate hazards including cyclones, floods, bushfires, desertification and rising sea levels.

    The top nine countries facing the highest risk of climate hazards were all Asian nations with the Philippines topping the list, followed by Japan, Bangladesh, Myanmar and China.

    IEP founder and executive chairman Steve Killelea told the ABC that many of the countries in the Asia-Pacific region also have weaker coping capacities for natural disasters.

    "Pacific Islands are going to be massively impacted by rising sea levels," Mr Killelea said, adding that they would be the first affected because of their proximity to the equator.

    In Australia, the main risks come from hurricanes and cyclones in the north, rising sea levels in the south and east, as well as drought and desertification which is already affecting thousands of farmers, he said.

    Climate hazards exacerbate conflict and migration

    The report — which ranks 163 countries by measuring internal safety and security, militarisation and ongoing conflict — included climate change risks for the first time this year to evaluate links between climate hazards and violence.

    "When you start to get massive effects from climate change you start to get large flows of refugees," Mr Killelea said, adding that this migration can increase instability and the impact of terrorism on host nations.

    Mr Killelea listed several countries where climate change has caused or exacerbated violence including Nigeria, where desertification has led to conflict over scarce resources, Haiti in the aftermath of multiple hurricanes and earthquakes, and South Sudan, where the drying of Lake Chad has exasperated tensions.

    In 2017, over 60 per cent of total displacements around the world were due to climate-related disasters, while nearly 40 per cent were caused by armed conflict.

    According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, more than 265 million people have been internally displaced by natural disasters since 2008, with the Asia-Pacific region the most heavily affected.

    Climate-induced migration is expected to continue to escalate, and in a region facing the highest risk, Australia could be heavily impacted.

    Farmers in Australia have begun migrating south to greener pastures, as droughts and desertification devastate northern regions.


    More…..
    OB
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • List
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Peter J Barban

    Peter J Barban Well-Known Member

    573
    +335
    Christian
    Married
    In my opinion, the climate is always changing and bad weather events are always happing somewhere. As always, it is the poor who suffer the most.

    The best way a country can protect itself is by becoming rich. Thus, it is imperative that governments adopt policies whereby the nation becomes wealthier and wealthier.

    The worst thing a country could do is adopt policies that lead to economic stagnation or decline. For this will make them increasingly vulnerable to disruption.
     
  3. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +1,778
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    Normally when the climate changes it happens over long periods of time. In this case we've seen significant change over decades and identified a very clear primary cause - man-made CO2. CO2 in the atmosphere causes it to retain heat. When unusually high amounts of CO2 are pumped out by man-made processes (e.g.,coal/oil burning) the temperature rise accelerates leading to Global Warming, aka, Climate Change. The science is in on this. The arguments now revolve around how quickly it's happening and the detail of when, where and how much for flow-on effects (like a rise in sea levels, high temperatures, drought, more intense storms etc.).
    I agree that the poor will suffer the most.
    Obviously a wealthy country will probably be better off than a poorer equivalent. Unfortunately suddenly getting wealthy is not a option when your economically disadvantaged Pacific island is slipping under water. It may also not help when your poor, climate effected neighbours are landing on your beaches in their thousands.
    Adopting policies that make Climate Change worse could lead to even worse disruption. It depends where you live. It is possible to reduce emissions without destroying the economy in the process.
    OB
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2019 at 1:21 AM
  4. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +1,778
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    I found a couple of relatively recent articles on the impact of Climate Change on Taiwan:
    Taiwan ranks seventh in climate impact severity report | The China Post
    https://international.thenewslens.com/article/69579

    If you'd like to see more, this link takes you to a Google search covering 'Climate Change Impact Taiwan'
    https://www.google.com.au/search?q=...XbYysKHSZ3Cl8Q1QIoAHoECAoQAQ&biw=1536&bih=774

    If you want a real awakening consider the potential impact on your big neighbour to the north along with some of the smaller countries around you. Does Taiwan become a floating refugee centre?
    OB
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  5. Jonathan Walkerin

    Jonathan Walkerin Active Member

    395
    +246
    Sweden
    Catholic
    Married
    Power Line - Wikipedia

    So a right wing blog that supported Iraq war and is composed of lawyers is a better source of climate science than climate scientists ?

    Apart from personal bias why would you believe people with those credentials over people with actual expertise on this field ?
     
  6. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +1,778
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    OK Peter - lets get sensible here. You've offered me an opinion piece, without references, from some online blogger I've never heard of, whose qualifications are unknown, suggesting a saturation point for the CO2 heat effect. There's a saying from the late Christopher Hitchens:

    What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

    I'll give you one better. Here's another take on the same issue:
    Is the CO2 effect saturated?
    OB



     
  7. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +4,712
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    Yes. The "climate" is always changing. It changes .2 degree over 1000s of years. Except in the 20th century where it increases .2 degrees in 2 or 3 decades.

    I'm curious how denuding even MORE of the earth's resources is actually going to HELP countries

    Imagine that, instead of climate change we were talking about waste and garbage. It would be ludicrous to think that the BEST way to deal with waste and garbage would be to consume MORE of the same stuff that we do to create more waste and garbage. So how can it be that the consumption of more raw material, the processing, chemical treatment, the energy required for production, distribution, shipping and support, is going to help resolve the problem? It just doesn't make logical sense.

    I get that people think that more money will solve hte problem. But the money has to get made in an INTELLIGENT way; not by doing the same thing we are doing already.
     
  8. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +4,712
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    There is REASON why you are choosing this information from this source Peter. There is a SPECIFIC reason why you went out of your way to NOT choose a source that had experience and knowledge in CO2 and climate science.

    And while I don't know that reason, the reason is NOT because this information is "just as valid" as information presented by climate scientists. If this information were valid (which it, absolutely, positively is NOT) you'd be able to find someone who ACTUALLY knew what they were talking about, arguing the point.

    Why did you choose to not include a link from climate scientists?
     
  9. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +4,991
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    You wouldn't be able to find a previous weather related event on this scale or magnitude.

    It's not possible for everyone to be wealthy. We would burn through resources too quickly ...which is exactly the cause of this problem.

    It's true those wealthy nations are better situated to handle what's coming....but I think economic decline is inevitable.
     
  10. Peter J Barban

    Peter J Barban Well-Known Member

    573
    +335
    Christian
    Married
    If one were to be realistic/cynical, the global environment is hostage to the will of China. It is going to do what is best for itself.

    Any country that voluntarily goes green will become poor without actually saving the environment.

    Thus, every country should either make stopping China it's top priority, or join China's quest for maximum economic benefits.

    Every other choice is suboptimal.
     
  11. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +1,778
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    China is still a big polluter but, let's be fair, its probably doing more in absolute terms than any other country.
    Try looking at the Scandinavian countries. From memory Norway is well on the way to 100% renewables. I assume you're talking about renewable power.

    The US has pulled out of the Paris Accords, Trump is in denial and the country is pulling back on any effort it was making. India is pumping out huge levels of CO2 and will probably have difficulty significantly reducing its emissions. We need to stop them all.

    If we all opt for maximising economic benefit then nothing will change or, more correctly, things will get significantly worse.

    China's obviously one of the biggest players in this, and it's in your backyard, but please don't let your focus on China blind you to what's happening in the rest of the world.
    OB
     
  12. Jonathan Walkerin

    Jonathan Walkerin Active Member

    395
    +246
    Sweden
    Catholic
    Married
    China is doing way more than US to promote green tech. They understand it is economically smart way to go as well a way to keep their population happier. They also take bit longer view and have decided that the coal is not the fuel of the future whatever some populist leaders might think.

    As for stopping China....this sounds pretty clueless since they are the ones making your stuff. If you really want to hinder China just cut your own consumption.

    Actually becoming "poor" is great for environment. During last recession for example Co2 emissions fell significantly.
     
  13. Jonathan Walkerin

    Jonathan Walkerin Active Member

    395
    +246
    Sweden
    Catholic
    Married
    Poor Norway. They have some advantages though that they can fund whatever they like because of their modest oil fund worth of over trillion dollars.

    The fund

    Better example might be Germany. Rich enough but they are heavily committed to green energy.

    Renewable energy in Germany - Wikipedia

    Let`s hope we get the fusion power sorted out fast.....
     
  14. rambot

    rambot Senior Member

    +4,712
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Greens
    So are you abandoning the "we just need to get poor people to consume more" stance?

    Also, you present the case as a dichotomy. It is not. Every country can take steps in the right direction and it need not be an economic hardship but a spending priority realignment.
    Europe has taken huge strides to reduce "dirty" energy and water usage. They are progressing towards a better way.


    I agree China's impact is such that it weilds a GREAT deal of sway over the global success. But as I saidin another thread, the easy solution to that: Don't buy Chinese.
     
  15. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +4,991
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    What in the world is 100% renewable?

    Are they going back to the stone age?
     
  16. W2L

    W2L Well-Known Member

    +10,657
    Christian
    Private
    We dont know if these weather patterns have been seen before or not. We havent been observing long enough to know anything. We watch for a short period of time and think we have a clear picture of history?
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2019 at 6:28 PM
  17. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +1,778
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    Wind power, solar power, tidal power, wave power, underground thermal exchange. There's probably more I've missed.
    OB
     
  18. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    +4,991
    United States
    Atheist
    Married
    Are photovoltaic cells renewable once they go bad? How about a wind turbine?

    I understand that these don't necessarily consume and create waste as quickly as fossil fuels....but they aren't renewable. It's simply a slower form of ecological destruction.
     
  19. Occams Barber

    Occams Barber Newbie Supporter

    +1,778
    Australia
    Atheist
    Divorced
    Now your just being a Contrarian :)

    It's the energy that's renewable. Obviously if the ecological cost of building and maintaining these things is so high that they cease to be of net ecological benefit then they don't proceed. But you knew that already.
    OB
     
Loading...