Climate Change/Mass Extinction Megathread

[Sheilbh]

I wouldn't worry about sea level rise on a grand scale too much in most of the UK.
The problem lies more on short term flooding, droughts, etc...
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/8/-1.2541/53.6028/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2100&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&return_level=return_level_1&slr_model=kopp_2014

Bright side of global warming- Middlesbrough is underwater.
And Boston.

Oh no - on that map I am underwater.

[garbon]

I wouldn't worry about sea level rise on a grand scale too much in most of the UK.
The problem lies more on short term flooding, droughts, etc...
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/8/-1.2541/53.6028/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2100&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&return_level=return_level_1&slr_model=kopp_2014

Bright side of global warming- Middlesbrough is underwater.
And Boston.

Oh no - on that map I am underwater.

While my lovely area survives

[mongers]

I'm at 12.31m AOD*, so I assume I'm sandbar material.




* and add another 1 metre from the surface of the river to the level of the flooring.

[crazy canuck]

I do appreciate your thoughtfulness, Sheilbh.  Anyone who wants to see those pictures can find them on their own.

ditto, thank you Sheilbh. 

[viper37]

I wouldn't worry about sea level rise on a grand scale too much in most of the UK.
The problem lies more on short term flooding, droughts, etc...
https://coastal.climatecentral.org/map/8/-1.2541/53.6028/?theme=sea_level_rise&map_type=year&basemap=roadmap&contiguous=true&elevation_model=best_available&forecast_year=2100&pathway=rcp45&percentile=p50&return_level=return_level_1&slr_model=kopp_2014

Bright side of global warming- Middlesbrough is underwater.
And Boston.

I'm safe.  But I'll need to pick up scuba diving once more if I a want a McD burger.

[Tonitrus]

I'd have a nice view of the channel looking across to Lincolnshire Island. 

[Zanza]

That flood in China looks really bad

[Sheilbh]

Quite a big fan of this provocation:
https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/is-norway-the-new-east-india-company

[Admiral Yi]

Good read.

[Josquius]

Quite a big fan of this provocation:
https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/is-norway-the-new-east-india-company

This article really doesn't get its history right at all.

[The Brain]

Norway is Norway.

[Admiral Yi]

You make excellent points Squeeze.

[The Minsky Moment]

Quite a big fan of this provocation:
https://branko2f7.substack.com/p/is-norway-the-new-east-india-company

Let's put aside the obvious fact that Norway isn't fighting wars to force unwilling buyers to purchase its oil and gas.  Au contraire.

Next question is would it have any impact if Norway ceased all production?

The simple answer is no - purchasers would buy from someone else.
The somewhat more complicated answer is maybe - because if you take away some supply price goes up, which pushes demand down depending on price elasticity.
And the somewhat more complicated answer than that  is no again because there is a lot of slack on supply side that would allow other sources supply to expand reasonably quickly so that market impact would be ephemeral.

And yeah - that's where I end up.  No.

It's fun to point out hypocrisy, especially if we can tarnish the annoyingly preachy Scandiweenian balls of light - so go right ahead and point, but analytically, I don't think the criticism holds up. 

[Admiral Yi]

It changes Joan if you take a very long term view.

Oil is a finite resource.  If Norway never pumps the oil lying in its territory that is that much less oil that will ever be burned.

[Sheilbh]

Let's put aside the obvious fact that Norway isn't fighting wars to force unwilling buyers to purchase its oil and gas.  Au contraire.

Next question is would it have any impact if Norway ceased all production?

The simple answer is no - purchasers would buy from someone else.
The somewhat more complicated answer is maybe - because if you take away some supply price goes up, which pushes demand down depending on price elasticity.
And the somewhat more complicated answer than that  is no again because there is a lot of slack on supply side that would allow other sources supply to expand reasonably quickly so that market impact would be ephemeral.

And yeah - that's where I end up.  No.

It's fun to point out hypocrisy, especially if we can tarnish the annoyingly preachy Scandiweenian balls of light - so go right ahead and point, but analytically, I don't think the criticism holds up.

I don't think the point is the hypocrisy - I think that side of the piece is the provocation.

The point and problem isn't hypocrisy. It's that at this point we still don't have feasible policies with popular support to combat climate change and to make the energy transition even in a country as rich and successful as Norway. You could add Australia (though it's less attractive as a target than Norway): a country at the front-line of climate change and a major carbon (x3 times the UK) because of its industries.

It's not lololol look at the Norwegians - but if energy transition politics is struggling there how much more challenging is this going to be in, say, Mexico or India? Of course one possible alternative may be an authoritarian transition in China?

Edit: E.g. - just this afternoon:
https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14207486/norway-preparing-for-upsurge-in-offshore-field-developments

Edit: And the challenge thrown down by this (and I think the gilets jaunes) isn't some counsel of despair about this - but how do we get a policy mix that addresses inequality, unemployment, higher costs etc in a way that's sufficient enough to get feasible, popularly-supported polices on climate? Nationally and then globally.

Edit: And I'd add - Norway also has a $1.5 trillion wealth fund that could help fund the energy transition or a move away from oil and gas. Again - if it's not possible here then how?