Where in the world do you think would be best to live with regards to the risks associated with climate change

[F0RBIDDEN]

So, say in a hundred years time. Where do you think might be safest to avoid the worst of the fires, floods, extreme heat etc ?

What makes you think any other place would let you in? Have you noticed how refugees are treated now? Imagine half the world's population as climate refugees. It won't be pretty.

Life will continue. Perhaps not the life we know right now, humans will struggle but something else will thrive.

All climate change aside I'm worried about something Jeremy Clarkson said on his show about the farm. (Yeah, I know. Odd eh?)

There's only about 120 seasons of top soil left. Ie there's only about 120 years in which we can reasonably grow food.

We're stuffed basically.

So no good soil for food, no pollinators, doesn't matter where you live if you've got nothing to eat!

During the Medieval Warm Period.

@EmilyBrontesGhost The medieval warm period was limited to specific regions in the northern hemisphere, globally temperatures were cooler than they are today, and significantly cooler than today +2C.

There is always a graph to try and convince us . . .

Feel free to post data or science to reinforce your hypothesis that +2C will be "fine"

Totally agree, I have felt like this for 45 years, not sure if I'm relieved or horrified that it's recognized everywhere now ..

You mean data.

Does it not convince you when a review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%, and over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.

The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus often contain errors or cannot be replicated.

Is it all science you take issue with or just this?

And, if it turns out you are right and all these scientists are wrong, we still need to understand how to respond to the effects of climate change.

Oh the "consensus" argument, yeah that's convinced me . . .

So you think you understand this better than 99% of scientists worldwide that have studied this?

Or do you believe they are all part of a conspiracy to deceive us? What would the purpose of that deception be?

Jeez....

Money and power.

It's always money and power.

Believe me, there are plenty more. Anyway, it's happening whether you and the other non believers think it is. Climate change doesn't care if you think it's for real

Planet Earth cares about neither

The UK cities considered best insulated against climate change effects is Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast, Preston and Middlesbrough.

86% of the best insulated cities in the world are found in Europe and the Americas (North to South).

95% of the most at risk cities are found in Africa and Asia.

According to Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University, these are the best placed areas to deal with the worst effects of climate change:

1. New Zealand
2. Iceland
3. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
4. Tasmania
5. Republic of Ireland

No coincidence these are all islands which have well developed infrastructure and are not low lying like the Maldives, for example.

I would say money and power is whats got us here.

The oil and gas industry has spent the last 20 years and more casting doubt on the issue rather than investing in new clean energy.
Why? Money and power.

The impacts will be felt wherever you live because of globalisation. Food supplies will be disrupted, and we cannot produce everything we need on our own island.

We need to be planning for this future, and we need to be doing this worldwide.

For the UK the impact of mass migration of humans will be harder than the changes to the crops that grow. That is what worries me most. Hard decisions will need to be made. I don't know the answers, but I don't feel any recent governments are equipped to deal with those hard questions.
At what point will countries start looking out for themselves at the expense of others?

I do enjoy a good disaster movie, I think the most realistic ones are those that show the fallibility of those 'in charge' making the decisions. Preferably without the usual side story of a loved one having gone missing.

Anywhere that was more responsible for global warming but will suffer less.

I heard from someone who knows about real estate trends that the super rich are buying up vast swathes of Scotland.

I have family with a lovely home well above sea level in Scotland. I hope they stay put!

I had an interesting chat with a French man the other day. He told me that grape crops are failing now in key growing regions like Bordeaux and that farmers are moving into tropical crops instead. He told me the French are well aware that Britain's wines are on the up. Which they are - bloody lovely and still underrated. Because we are starting to have the climate for growing wine.

The truth is we will have to triple our use of gas and energy to develop so-called environmentally friendly energy infrastructures.

They require massive amounts of steel and concrete to produce. Nuclear is the only feasible way forward if you don't want to rely on gas and oil.

As we become more advanced as a species our energy expenditure will increase, not decrease. And wind and solar won't suffice. Wind turbines require huge resources to build.

It's not just greed. Our advancement as a species and the improvement in quality of life has been due to oil and gas. We also can't turn around to people in the third world and deprive them of being able to do the same. That's unconscionable.

And yet the farmers dont reinstate small fields and hedgerows (which reduce the problem of topsoil loss).

Hence one of the main principles of the paris agreement being a just transition to a fossil fuel free economy.

Absolutely all consumption of resources is environmentally damaging and people suffer across the world to give us what we use.

But the climate emergency is the most pressing concern because of the possibility of setting off tipping points that cause irreversible climate change, that will cause suffering across the globe. Rather than the pockets of suffering we seem able to accept at the moment.

Its funny how people bring up these other concerns when talking about how we can't transition away from fossil fuels but otherwise seem unconcerned.

Plus if we hadn't delayed we could have spent the last 25 years working on this, and the science was well understood then. Shell and the likes have deliberately muddied the waters for their own benefit, not for the benefit of less developed nations.

In the 1980s, oil companies like Exxon and Shell carried out internal assessments of the carbon dioxide released by fossil fuels, and forecast the planetary consequences of these emissions. In 1982, for example, Exxon predicted that by about 2060, CO2 levels would reach around 560 parts per million – double the preindustrial level – and that this would push the planet’s average temperatures up by about 2°C over then-current levels (and even more compared to pre-industrial levels).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/sep/19/shell-and-exxons-secret-1980s-climate-change-warnings