On one hand, Russia may soon finally have year-round maritime access that can't easily be blocked by other powers. On the other hand, will it still be able to count on its winters to shut out invaders?
Russia is good at causing problems, because they cost relatively little. Russia has no military to fight a protracted war against a "real" country, and definitely they cannot project power thousands of miles away.
Now if they get invaded that's a different story, but other than China I don't see anyone else invading them. If China retakes Siberia, then get ready for nuclear winters.
As Napoleon said the army marches in its stomach, and Russia has a limited amount of money. Russia is behind Canada when it comes to GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... Granted they have a history of weapon production and can squeeze more out of a dollar, but if it looks like war is coming, you'll see everyone spending and catching up.
We have climate deniers, and we have another group of people who don't want to spend money to solve the problem; probably the Republican party. Global warming simply isn't a priority.
More important problems than global warming. Skip to minute 6:
Right, but they also want to _spend_ money to accelerate the problem. With just a dozen years of subsidy, we're now at a point where unsubsidized the solar and wind industries do better than the still heavily subsidized fossil fuel industry for everything but the midsized high-output applications (e.g., trucks & shipping) and some specific industrial cases.
The first would could do commensurate good by spending its enormous resources accelerating the reliance on renewable resources. So this argument against Kyoto (which is indeed a proposal that is more a gesture than a solution) is basically used to dismiss other things.
For example, Trump's proposed to wipe out the EV tax credit (please don't, I want my tax credit!) in the US. It'd reclaim less than a billion dollars but substantially deter the uptake of EV cars.
Similarly, the US is facing a grim truth that even it cannot maintain its entire massive infrastructure in the face of modern economic challenges. Renewable resource generation offers an alternative, distributed power grid. Between this and modern manufacturing techniques, we see a glimpse of a future where socialists, centralists and anarchists all see a world resembling more of what they want, with regional control and generation of power resources and control over economics, but a framework left in place for a top down government to govern things that are advantageous overall (central planning for scarce resources & conservation, rights and health care, etc).
Resistance to the topic on the grounds that Kyoto is bad is over-applied to all attempts to grapple with climate change, even when they actually have huge positive effects only tangentially related.
The down votes come not from the "truth", but that this is a smoke screen. Yes, we had much higher temperatures in the past. What is the problem right now is the quick change in temperatures. At minimum this means, that our day-to-day lives are getting screwed up, as the current civilization is adjusted to the temperatures of the last 200 years. Large cities are going to be flooded, whole farming regions are going to shift. We are talking about relocating billions.
And if we are really unlucky, the eco systems get screwed up by this fast shift, which could have extinction level consequences.
The fact that the headline could have been written before means what, exactly?
65 million years ago you could write the headline "Giant Asteroid Set to Wipe Out Most Life" but that doesn't imply we should be ok with a giant asteroid hitting now.
What is the point you are trying to make with? If the headline included that this time it's largely due to human activity would that placate you? It's an implicit assumption with such artcles that the alarm comes from this time being the fault of human activity and that the change is rapid.
Large numbers of people are passive or apathetic to what is going on in terms of pollution and the detrimental effects that this is causing. What is the point of mentioning that climate changes naturally when the focus is on human caused change?
[+] [-] dghughes|9 years ago|reply
The new base is almost right in line with the Northwest Passage so I assume it's meant to police it just in time for the big melt.
[+] [-] lambdasquirrel|9 years ago|reply
I wonder what all of this will portend.
[+] [-] easilyBored|9 years ago|reply
Now if they get invaded that's a different story, but other than China I don't see anyone else invading them. If China retakes Siberia, then get ready for nuclear winters.
As Napoleon said the army marches in its stomach, and Russia has a limited amount of money. Russia is behind Canada when it comes to GDP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... Granted they have a history of weapon production and can squeeze more out of a dollar, but if it looks like war is coming, you'll see everyone spending and catching up.
[+] [-] mrfusion|9 years ago|reply
Everyone seems to ignore it.
[+] [-] melling|9 years ago|reply
More important problems than global warming. Skip to minute 6:
https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioriti...
[+] [-] KirinDave|9 years ago|reply
The first would could do commensurate good by spending its enormous resources accelerating the reliance on renewable resources. So this argument against Kyoto (which is indeed a proposal that is more a gesture than a solution) is basically used to dismiss other things.
For example, Trump's proposed to wipe out the EV tax credit (please don't, I want my tax credit!) in the US. It'd reclaim less than a billion dollars but substantially deter the uptake of EV cars.
Similarly, the US is facing a grim truth that even it cannot maintain its entire massive infrastructure in the face of modern economic challenges. Renewable resource generation offers an alternative, distributed power grid. Between this and modern manufacturing techniques, we see a glimpse of a future where socialists, centralists and anarchists all see a world resembling more of what they want, with regional control and generation of power resources and control over economics, but a framework left in place for a top down government to govern things that are advantageous overall (central planning for scarce resources & conservation, rights and health care, etc).
Resistance to the topic on the grounds that Kyoto is bad is over-applied to all attempts to grapple with climate change, even when they actually have huge positive effects only tangentially related.
[+] [-] digsmahler|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iconjack|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Mendenhall|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _ph_|9 years ago|reply
And if we are really unlucky, the eco systems get screwed up by this fast shift, which could have extinction level consequences.
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
65 million years ago you could write the headline "Giant Asteroid Set to Wipe Out Most Life" but that doesn't imply we should be ok with a giant asteroid hitting now.
[+] [-] chasing|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noonespecial|9 years ago|reply
We're wondering how fast this will happen and if there's anything we can do about it.
[+] [-] yequalsx|9 years ago|reply
Large numbers of people are passive or apathetic to what is going on in terms of pollution and the detrimental effects that this is causing. What is the point of mentioning that climate changes naturally when the focus is on human caused change?
[+] [-] alphapapa|9 years ago|reply
29 years constitutes a baseline.
[+] [-] mikeash|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wheelerwj|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickjarboe|9 years ago|reply