Why Canada Is the Best Haven from Climate Change
A group of islands with the potential to develop into a tourist paradise has been named as the country least equipped to withstand the effects of climate change.
The Comoros Islands in the Indian Ocean, between Mozambique and Madagascar, are a small nation of sparkling blue lagoons and picture-postcard beaches. But the country is politically unstable and a report published today says it is the world's most vulnerable country to the future impacts of global warming such as increased storms, rising sea levels and agricultural failure.
At the other end of the scale, Canada is the best place to move to if you want to be a climate change survivor in the decades ahead (although Britain is also a good place to be as a warming atmosphere takes hold).
The best-to-worst rankings are revealed in the first-ever climate change vulnerability index, produced by Maplecroft, a British consultancy which specialises in the mapping of risk. Its study, The Climate Change Risk Report, looks in great detail at global warming risks in 168 countries.
Africa is the most vulnerable region, and eight of the 10 most vulnerable countries are African, with the Comoros Islands followed by Somalia and Burundi in second and third places. Only five non-African countries are in the 20 most vulnerable. They are Yemen, Afghanistan, Haiti, Pakistan and Nepal.
As might be expected, developed nations score best. Canada is top, followed by Ireland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden. The United Kingdom is in 12th position, just behind the US. The surprise in the top 20 is Uruguay, which is listed ninth, and the only well-placed nation not to be in the club of countries which are rich, or Western (and usually both).
The originality of the new study is that it does not predict global warming's impacts, from increased droughts to rising sea levels, which has been done for the past two decades by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Instead, it looks at how countries are fitted to meet them. "We're not saying anything about the changing climate," said Andy Thow, one of the report's authors. "We're saying, what's the situation on the ground in terms of vulnerability? If there were an impact, how vulnerable would the country be?"
Vulnerability is examined by the study across six different sectors - the economy; natural resources and ecosystems; poverty, development and health; agriculture; population, settlement and infrastructure; and institutions, governance and social capital. Eventually a figure is arrived at on the scale of one to 10, with one being the most vulnerable, and 10 the most secure. The Comoros score is 1.21; Canada's score is 8.81. (The UK scores 8.06.)
"The simple reason that Comoros is most vulnerable overall is that it scores poorly across all parts of the index," Dr Thow said.
"The combination of all these factors is worse than for any other country. It scores particularly poorly in the agriculture and natural resources and ecosystems components.
This reflects a situation in which pressure on natural resources is extremely high and there is very limited capacity to adapt to the impacts of changes in climate. That capacity is limited by factors such as poor land quality, low crop production and yields and water stress, combined with a growing population.
"Canada, on the other hand, is extremely well equipped to adapt to changes in climate. It scores well across all aspects of the index. This is because of the low pressure on natural resources resulting from a low population density and large land area, combined with high agricultural capacity, a healthy economy, few development and health challenges and excellent public institutions."
But Dr Thow pointed out that while Maplecroft's work showed Canada was well placed to manage the impacts of climate change on people and society, its wildlife was likely to be seriously affected by the expected magnitude of changes to climate in the Arctic region.
The Comoros also scores lowest in the world (jointly with Chad) on the report's index of emissions of carbon dioxide, which means that the country likely to suffer most from global warming has done the least to cause it.
Worst hit
75% Proportion of the world's 20 most vulnerable nations to climate change that can be found in Africa
© 2008 The Independent
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
17 Comments so far
Show AllWHERE ARE THE "CHILDLESS COUPLES TAX BREAKS"?
My Wife and I are high School Sweethearts..been together since 1982...and we have....a cat..and lov him dearly..
We have made the decision NOT to have children..with..some degree of sadness..and even..weirdly for us..HESITATION..we would LIKE to have some .."aspect" OF OUR union LEFT TO CARRY ON..WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE A GOOD THING..ETC...and would be GOOD parents..
But..ZPG..is more important to us..it really is..and of course..to be pefectly honest wiht all you stangers...we are just..as "X-Ers' to selfish with our own time..but..we could have children in two fuckin seconds..but we are..NOT going to..
AND SO?..well..WHY do we not get a TAX BREAK?
Think of the ENTIRE LIFETIME OF A HUMAN..AND THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO LIVE...
IT IS TIME FOR A TAX BREAK FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE..BY CHOICE..NOT PRODUCING MORE HUMAN BURDEN ON THE DWINDLING RESOURCES OF THIS PLANET...IT IS TIME..WHY SHOULD WE PAY..FOR PEOPLE TO PUMP OUT LARVAE WHEN THE WORLD IS GOING TO HELL?..WE PAY FOUR..(4) FUCKING "SCHOOL BOND PROPERTY TAX MEASURES" and more..
and we get nothing in return for the LIFETIMES worth of resources our decision is SAVING...
It is TIME for "Tax Policy" to accomodate the "Resource" driven decison to NOT REPRODUCE and add more MOUTHS AND ASSHOLES to th planet..She cannot..and DOES NOT..want any more...
C'mon..folks...ZPG..and..here we go..this oughtta freak em out..AND.."SNIPPING" of ..BABY MAKERS..no family should get tax breaks for 10 children unless they are..in fact..FARM FOLK or the like...but ANY URBAN DWELLERS..that have more than ZPG..should PAY for that..not BE PAID..FUCK it makes me angry..goddamn baby makers...
Wake Up..resource driven tax relief..it is time..
I would think Russia would be 1 or 2, excluding small area countries as having a lesser overall effect.
Garbage In, Garbage Out.
Well, if you're coming to Canada, better avoid the prairies, which is rapidly becoming a toxic pigsty, thanks to tarsands exploitation. (Gotta keep them Yanks in oil.)
Ah-Ha! I knew it. Its all been a secret plot by those evil Canadians to take over the world. Secret cabals of canucks ensconsed in business and government all designed to create a giant evil machine that would heat the world and make Canada dominant.
The Kuntsler book The Long Emergency is an absolute must-read to understand what is happening.
Guess it's time that we Canadians started building a fence on our border. We don't want to be swapped with Lou Dobb's illegal aliens from the U.S.A.
Caanadians should be studying the current situation in Iraq right now, to see what our future holds...
...The USA already counts all of oil reserves in Canada as part of their stategic "national" oil supply..can claiming all of our water and farmland as theirs be far behind?
The USA is like a spoiled child..."MINE, MINE, MINE!!"
In the article posted, the most revealing passages are the ones that feature Canada, rated number one:
"Canada, on the other hand, is extremely well equipped to adapt to changes in climate. It scores well across all aspects of the index. This is because of the LOW pressure on natural resources resulting from a LOW population density and large land area, combined with high agricultural capacity, a healthy economy, few development and health challenges and excellent public institutions"
And here is the passage on Comoros, the nation rated least able to survive:
"It scores particularly poorly in the agriculture and natural resources and ecosystems components. This reflects a situation in which (Population) pressure on natural resources is EXTREMELY HIGH and there is very limited capacity to adapt to the impacts of changes in climate. That capacity is limited by factors such as poor land quality, low crop production and yields and water stress, combined with a GROWING Population."
Ehrlich's Population Bomb can now be seen to have gone off. Nobody wanted to know it, so they closed their eyes and ears to the explosion.
If you read Lovelock's THE REVENGE OF GAIA, and if he is right, the coming years will see the demise of the perversion of Globalization (that super-national NeoCon Flat-Worlders' dream-world) due to the demise of cheap oil and the double curse of global warming, both due to the world's burning of 4 million barrels of oil every single hour of every day.
As Earth's desertifaction and greenhouse-heating goes forward, Lovelock also indicates that every nation will become more local and on its own, to sink or swim. Canada better build its wall. Or hordes will be moving in from collapsed areas like the USA and Mexico.
Localized socialism with family planning looks to be the only way forward. Socialism is necessary because most people must actually stop working in order to save the planet (do not harm), but obviously will not do so if that means starvation. And that means either socialism a la Scandinavia... or mass war, which is the NeoCon/Bushite choice. Localism is necessary because long-distance supply chains will cease to exist, and centralized far-away governments will no longer be able to exercise power.
But this may actually lead to a better life for all as well, if cooperation and realization are the goals, and not the antithetical ideals of accumulation and power and tribal thinking and the outstripping of natural local carrying capacities. (Yeah, I know, fat chance.)
Lovelock, who has actually Saved All Life on Earth once before, by his efforts protecting the Ozone layer from destruction, indicates it is now probably too late to control global warming, and we are now along for the ride. He says the Earth could support a high and equitable civilization of about 2 billion people at a time indefinitely, but as we have shot way past this marker, there will be blood, as Earth cannot sustain current numbers of humans for very long. Read also Kuntsler's THE LONG EMERGENCY for similar views of the collapse of moderm civilization within our lifetime, and what that means for America (and who gets the WMD when the US breaks up?)
The deniers of disaster are deniers because they usually have something to lose if the doomsayers are correct, either materially or psychologically or both. But apart from them, we must prepare for the worst by hanging together. Or, as Ben Fraklin said on another topic, we will all hang separately.
And as a footnote, please note that the current despicable Republican candidate for President, InSane McCain, received a score of actually ZERO votes FOR the environment in the Senate, according to the League of Conservation Voters (Obama woted For the environment almost all of the time).
A vote For McCain is truly A VOTE AGAINST LIFE ON EARTH!
Yeah, I agree with kelmer: Boreal forests in the upper half of Canada will be eaten or burned; Corporations will buy up the last of the resources, then sell them to the highest bidders; Quebec will sell out to the Yanks, the way the Natives had to under the Europeans; and lastly, a pandemic will wipe out most of the population.
Canada has become the largest supplier of Oil to the US and NAFTA provisions mean that we cannot reduce that flow without facing sanctions (and probably invasion).
British Columbia has just instituted a carbon tax, demonstrating at least some commitment to CO2 emissions reduction. Now the howling of the right will begin. It is going to take a lot of courage for the current government to make the new tax stick.
It is a surreal thing being a (somewhat) politically aware Canadian. I paddle my canoe on glassy, drinkable water, whistling Big Yellow Taxi as I ponder the mass die-offs beginning around the world. I can catch a fish but it isn't going to be enough for everyone.
Maybe Canada should be building a border fence, eh?
Please feel free to come to Canada.
Just so long as you remove the parasitic pest 'politicians petroleumus' from the area first...
The best high-lattitude farm land in Canada is in Alberta's Peace region near Fort Vermillion, some 58.3 degrees North.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Vermilion,_Alberta
But thats where they want to build the big nuke plant to power the tar sand extraction.
Oh well...
Actually Ceti, several countries are higher http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/energy-resources/variable-351.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita
but Canada has nothing to be proud of.
Yes, Canada has the highest energy consumption per capita in the world, even more than the US. The impact of every Canadian will be felt by the poorest and least equipped to handle the devestating of climate change, while Canadians will be revelling in more land, water, and oil per capita than anywhere else in the world.
Canadians have been smug far too long, especially now with Harper in power who basically wants to do as little as possible to address climate change. Even within Canada we have regional disparities with Alberta and the West basically thumbing its nose at Central Canada which is suffering an economic downturn. The gross sense of entitlement is pretty perverse.
Meaningless. Chances are it wont go the way things are predicted.
Climate in Coastal British Columbia has really changed in the last few years. Short Springs, colder summers.
Yeah. Move to Alberta, get a job in their multi-million barrel a day oil sand boom, get rich, and be safe from the consequences of your livlihood at the same time!