> In fact, our adaptation to the current climate (eg in agriculture and
> infrastructure, as have been mentioned) is also a matter of economics,
> technology and politics, and we can guarantee that these will continue
> to change at quite a rate.
The climate-change impacts folk are busy trying to identify the winners
and losers in the context of projected climate change over the next
50-100 years.
Some of this work factors in the resiliency and prospects for
technological development of prospective winners and losers. For
example, the impact of climate change on US agriculture is expected to
be negative, but agricultural technology is so highly developed that we
could end up economic winners (maybe we'll insert a camel gene into
maize so it becomes drought tolerant, or something like that).
Conversely, my recollection is that many of the losers are expected to
be in parts of the world that already are stressed economically and
politically.
Nowadays most any nation that wants nuclear weapons can get them within
a few years. For this reason I rate the prospect of climate-induced
political instability in the developing world as a greater concern than
climate change itself.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
