Global Warming Making The Rich Richer

Climate change is making the rich, richer. And what about the poor? Well you can guess. A new study  finds the gap between the world's poorest and richest countries is about 25% larger today than without global warming. 
Wow, this is an interesting take on global warming. 

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, BlackTortoise said:

Climate change is making the rich, richer. And what about the poor? Well you can guess. A new study  finds the gap between the world's poorest and richest countries is about 25% larger today than without global warming. 
Wow, this is an interesting take on global warming. 

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer 

Just ask Al the Gore, how much richer he has become because of it !!!!:D

  • Great Response! 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlackTortoise said:

Climate change is making the rich, richer. And what about the poor? Well you can guess. A new study  finds the gap between the world's poorest and richest countries is about 25% larger today than without global warming. 
Wow, this is an interesting take on global warming. 

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer 

Basically this report doesn't mean very much at all. Over 50 years, climate change - and there is no doubt the world has warmed in that time for whatever reason - meant that total growth in poorer countries was 25 per cent less than it might have been.. That's a small amount each year which obviously adds up, but then any small influence would add up and larger influences such as having criminal governments add up vastly more. The fact that climate made any difference has more to do with the reason rich countries are rich and the poor, poor in the first place. Climate and access to resources has nothing to do with it. Compare Finland to Nigeria, say. Finland's got nothing but a bunch of lakes and forests and is in freezing darkness six months of the year. Nigeria has more resources, including oil, than any country could want; lots of agricultural growing time and so on. Yet Nigeria is one of the poorer countries and Finland among the richest, per capita. The real difference is government and legal systems. Finland has an open, (comparatively) honest government with rule of law, secure property rights and functioning markets. Nigeria is getting better in those areas, as I understand, but is still a long, long way behind. That's the reason for the difference. Forget the other stuff including comparatively minor changes in climate.

  • Great Response! 2
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Basically this report doesn't mean very much at all. Over 50 years, climate change - and there is no doubt the world has warmed in that time for whatever reason - meant that total growth in poorer countries was 25 per cent less than it might have been.. That's a small amount each year which obviously adds up, but then any small influence would add up and larger influences such as having criminal governments add up vastly more. The fact that climate made any difference has more to do with the reason rich countries are rich and the poor, poor in the first place. Climate and access to resources has nothing to do with it. Compare Finland to Nigeria, say. Finland's got nothing but a bunch of lakes and forests and is in freezing darkness six months of the year. Nigeria has more resources, including oil, than any country could want; lots of agricultural growing time and so on. Yet Nigeria is one of the poorer countries and Finland among the richest, per capita. The real difference is government and legal systems. Finland has an open, (comparatively) honest government with rule of law, secure property rights and functioning markets. Nigeria is getting better in those areas, as I understand, but is still a long, long way behind. That's the reason for the difference. Forget the other stuff including comparatively minor changes in climate.

Resource rich, greed driven and poor management by politicians

Every leader in all resource rich African countries has been embroiled in corruption at all levels and go beyond Africa , you see it all over in the non democratic non western/developed  countries.  Indonesia, Brunei, Venezuela, Brazil, Mid-East oil rich nations, CIS countries rich in oil......................

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

Basically this report doesn't mean very much at all. Over 50 years, climate change - and there is no doubt the world has warmed in that time for whatever reason - meant that total growth in poorer countries was 25 per cent less than it might have been.. That's a small amount each year which obviously adds up, but then any small influence would add up and larger influences such as having criminal governments add up vastly more. The fact that climate made any difference has more to do with the reason rich countries are rich and the poor, poor in the first place. Climate and access to resources has nothing to do with it. Compare Finland to Nigeria, say. Finland's got nothing but a bunch of lakes and forests and is in freezing darkness six months of the year. Nigeria has more resources, including oil, than any country could want; lots of agricultural growing time and so on. Yet Nigeria is one of the poorer countries and Finland among the richest, per capita. The real difference is government and legal systems. Finland has an open, (comparatively) honest government with rule of law, secure property rights and functioning markets. Nigeria is getting better in those areas, as I understand, but is still a long, long way behind. That's the reason for the difference. Forget the other stuff including comparatively minor changes in climate.


Was just trying to be ironic. Obviously I didn't succeed in it. 😉

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ceo_energemsier said:

Resource rich, greed driven and poor management by politicians

Every leader in all resource rich African countries has been embroiled in corruption at all levels and go beyond Africa , you see it all over in the non democratic non western/developed  countries.  Indonesia, Brunei, Venezuela, Brazil, Mid-East oil rich nations, CIS countries rich in oil......................

Oil is a resource that can be replaced by natural gas, renewables, ethanol etc. It has to compete. There are plenty of large offshore finds of natural gas and oil. Ethanol is usually cheaper per energy unit than gasoline. Not per gallon or by retail price but by wholesale price. I have long said that any country that is overly dependent on oil is in big trouble economically. We are blessed that we can sell it to ourselves and we all benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BlackTortoise said:

Climate change is making the rich, richer. And what about the poor? Well you can guess. A new study  finds the gap between the world's poorest and richest countries is about 25% larger today than without global warming. 
Wow, this is an interesting take on global warming. 

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer 

I am not familiar with any really poor countries. Mexico is somewhere in the middle. In America, most of our poor eat well and many are obese. They have television, air conditioning and all the basic creature comforts. Housing is very expensive in the most desirable areas but even the average American has trouble with that. Most of the housing problem is due to people wanting to live in areas they can't afford and not wanting to live where they could afford housing far more easily. Many prefer to stay in warmer areas and live there year around. Those with mental health and drug problems sometimes choose to live on the streets, beach, in parks etc. They do not want supervision by those who would like to organize them into housing units. 

My guess is that in Third World countries that the living standard of the poor has gone up slightly every decade since WW!. Cell phones, solar panels and television dishes have helped them with news, education and recreation. I would like to see a lot more done to help bring up the very poor with clean water, decent housing, etc. I think practical education can go a long way to help people at many levels of society. 

  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I am not familiar with any really poor countries. Mexico is somewhere in the middle. In America, most of our poor eat well and many are obese. They have television, air conditioning and all the basic creature comforts. Housing is very expensive in the most desirable areas but even the average American has trouble with that. Most of the housing problem is due to people wanting to live in areas they can't afford and not wanting to live where they could afford housing far more easily. Many prefer to stay in warmer areas and live there year around. Those with mental health and drug problems sometimes choose to live on the streets, beach, in parks etc. They do not want supervision by those who would like to organize them into housing units. 

My guess is that in Third World countries that the living standard of the poor has gone up slightly every decade since WW!. Cell phones, solar panels and television dishes have helped them with news, education and recreation. I would like to see a lot more done to help bring up the very poor with clean water, decent housing, etc. I think practical education can go a long way to help people at many levels of society. 

Eating well from a health perspective and calorie intake are too different things.

As a reasonably well educated middle income earner my family eat a wide range of food - fish, lean meats (in moderation) lots of vegetables, wholegrains, fruit, nuts and pulses.

Alternatively a diet of processed meat, potatoes, grains and oils would satisfy calorific demand and be a lot cheaper.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, BlackTortoise said:

Was just trying to be ironic. Obviously I didn't succeed in it. 😉

Oh sorry, but I was just having my two cents worth.. it was an interesting post.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2019 at 6:38 AM, NickW said:

Eating well from a health perspective and calorie intake are too different things.

As a reasonably well educated middle income earner my family eat a wide range of food - fish, lean meats (in moderation) lots of vegetables, wholegrains, fruit, nuts and pulses.

Alternatively a diet of processed meat, potatoes, grains and oils would satisfy calorific demand and be a lot cheaper.

Eating well from a health point of view is very inexpensive. Eating a traditional American diet (fifties era) can be fairly inexpensive. Eating prepackaged frozen food, processed foods, and fast food, is more expensive and not as good for you. See Diet for a Small Planet. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal is to make the rich richer, middle class poorer and the poor desperate.  It’s working 🤔🙁

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/15/2019 at 6:46 AM, BlackTortoise said:

Climate change is making the rich, richer. And what about the poor? Well you can guess. A new study  finds the gap between the world's poorest and richest countries is about 25% larger today than without global warming. 
Wow, this is an interesting take on global warming. 

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20190502-how-global-warming-has-made-the-rich-richer 

eeerr.......... is it not because of the differences in currency exchange rate among countries?? 

 

On 5/15/2019 at 8:42 AM, markslawson said:

......... - meant that total growth in poorer countries was 25 per cent less than it might have been...............

when disasters are hitting the poor countries more frequently because of climate change...... the poor countries might not just grow 25% less but they could have been no growth........... too busy allocating fund to help the large affected areas and population; shifting people to safer places during disaster and rebuilding on the same place or close to that original spot after a disaster with the same structures.............

In the West........ it might be seen on TV that disaster prone areas are generally less populated...... and the rebuilding might not always be the same place or same structure......... hence............ uuhhh...........

 

30 minutes ago, Fossilvsfairtails said:

The goal is to make the rich richer, middle class poorer and the poor desperate.  It’s working 🤔🙁

That's right. So that the rich can donate most of their earnings - if not all - to a charity fund (or a few) for tax exemptions............... The money is returning to the poor somehow................ or no?

Edited by specinho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, the globe is not heating up! Some areas are getting warmer and some cooler. I did not see anthing in the article addressing the areas experiencing cooler temperatures.

Secondly, how is a 58 year study on climate change effects even considered definitive?

The only people getting rich out of this debate are the fearmongers screaming 'the sky is falling!' then getting people to buy their green products, pay to attend their seminars, etc...

Al Gore, the guru of this nonsense has gotten filthy rich pushing his agenda (his carbon footprint is huge if you include his private jet). Bernie Sanders owns three residences. Doesn't show much concern about the planet.

  • Great Response! 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Douglas Buckland said:

First, the globe is not heating up! Some areas are getting warmer and some cooler. I did not see anthing in the article addressing the areas experiencing cooler temperatures.

You need to realise that if you are providing information about the globe then it is irrelevant what is happening at any particular place.  You might want to brush up on your logical processes.

You should also have the courtesy to show that what you claim about the climate might be true.  I know it is not, but I do welcome you having a go at being honest to your words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, specinho said:

when disasters are hitting the poor countries more frequently because of climate change...... the poor countries might not just grow 25% less but they could have been no growth........... too busy allocating fund to help the large affected areas and population; shifting people to safer places during disaster and rebuilding on the same place or close to that original spot after a disaster with the same structures.

specinho - for this effect to actually happen you need more disasters. Despite all the screaming and shouting about climate and disasters that just isn't happening. The 2014 IPCC report found a weak link between more intense storms and the minor changes in temperatures that have happened to date. In any case, you'd expect this to be accounted for in the original report. Leave it with you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Red said:

You need to realise that if you are providing information about the globe then it is irrelevant what is happening at any particular place.  You might want to brush up on your logical processes.

You should also have the courtesy to show that what you claim about the climate might be true.  I know it is not, but I do welcome you having a go at being honest to your words.

You do realize that the term 'global warming' has not been used in the academia in well over a decade simply because it was not true - the 'globe' has never experienced a time when recorded temperatures, globally, have shown an increase at every point where temperatures have been recorded.

This is what led to the term 'climate change' in serious discussions of the issue.

If you choose to 'cherry pick' data which supports your theory and ignore that which does not, you are guilty of 'bad science'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You do realize that the term 'global warming' has not been used in the academia in well over a decade simply because it was not true - the 'globe' has never experienced a time when recorded temperatures, globally, have shown an increase at every point where temperatures have been recorded.

First, you introduced the term global warming, not me.  Your sentence is also a nonsense - it's unintelligible!  Read my first post.

Second, global warming continues to be used in climate science every day, because it is a consequence of climate change, as this link shows. 

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

This is what led to the term 'climate change' in serious discussions of the issue.

Gilbert Plass first wrote about climate change in 1956,  however global warming was in regular use before that as a result of several 19th century scientists working out how elevated CO2 levels had a warming effect.  The two terms relate to definitionally different things.

1 hour ago, Douglas Buckland said:

If you choose to 'cherry pick' data which supports your theory and ignore that which does not, you are guilty of 'bad science'.

I do not have a theory, climate science determined that fact.  

What data are you talking about, as neither you nor I have presented any?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously suffering from the Tree Hugger virus....

The 'green' side of the environmental debate simply ignores any science or data which does not support their theory.

They 'cherry pick' their scientists like their data.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2019 at 3:22 PM, markslawson said:

specinho - for this effect to actually happen you need more disasters. Despite all the screaming and shouting about climate and disasters that just isn't happening. The 2014 IPCC report found a weak link between more intense storms and the minor changes in temperatures that have happened to date. In any case, you'd expect this to be accounted for in the original report. Leave it with you.  

Pardon my ignorant.... I'm not sure what report that is but here is a quote for your reference.

Quote

Each year in Bangladesh about 26,000 square kilometres (10,000 sq mi) (around 18% of the country) is flooded, killing over 5,000 people and destroying more than seven million homes. During severe floods the affected area may exceed 75% of the country, as was seen in 1998.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh

So........... eerrrr.......... it's a yearly event that the ruins and rebuilding processes are occuring and repeated the same old way...... with increased severity or frequency once in a while.......:oO.o

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, specinho said:

So........... eerrrr.......... it's a yearly event that the ruins and rebuilding processes are occuring and repeated the same old way...... with increased severity or frequency once in a while.......:oO.o

Not sure why you pointed to floods in Bangladesh. The area is known to have had severe floods since records began.  Note that the quote you give is referring to an event of nearly 20 years ago. You have to look at overall trends, not just in Bangladesh and the IPCC was unable to find any convincing evidence of natural trends in floods. Also note that climate is just one factor in any trends in number of deaths and destruction due to such events, and arguably a secondary one. Read the rest of the Wikipedia article you quote. See that they are developing floating schools, ensuring houses are on stilts, raising highways and so on. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the death toll from floods in that area was going down, due to a system of shelters. Trends in GDP (and so more money to spend on flood control and so on) mean vastly more than trends in climate. Leave it with you. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 5/19/2019 at 9:23 AM, Fossilvsfairtails said:

The goal is to make the rich richer, middle class poorer and the poor desperate.  It’s working 🤔🙁

Yes, but what is also happening is that people are being made to feel like desperate victims rather than being taught how to succeed in real life by doing their part in the work of a capitalist society. Instead, they are told they deserve more free stuff than society can possibly afford. Our social programs are already making it impossible to afford necessities like infrastructure repairs and newly needed projects. 

Secondly is to import more illegal immigrants so that there will be new desperate people to give benefits to and purchase their loyalty for Demoncrat votes. 

Edited by ronwagn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, markslawson said:

Not sure why you pointed to floods in Bangladesh. The area is known to have had severe floods since records began.  Note that the quote you give is referring to an event of nearly 20 years ago. You have to look at overall trends, not just in Bangladesh and the IPCC was unable to find any convincing evidence of natural trends in floods. Also note that climate is just one factor in any trends in number of deaths and destruction due to such events, and arguably a secondary one. Read the rest of the Wikipedia article you quote. See that they are developing floating schools, ensuring houses are on stilts, raising highways and so on. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the death toll from floods in that area was going down, due to a system of shelters. Trends in GDP (and so more money to spend on flood control and so on) mean vastly more than trends in climate. Leave it with you. 

Ah yes, Bangladesh, massive river delta, Indian Subcontinent suducting under Asia, massive population explosion, modern life/goods finally allowing them to build up and out of the swamp, receeding glaciers from their little maximum in 1850, slightly warmer temperatures creating a slightly bulged ocean, and viola, you have Bangladesh. 

Then you have to ask, what is the sediment rate today, compared to say 100, 1000, 10,000 years ago.  Sedimentation compaction does not happen overnight nor does it take much in the way of decreasing gradient slope for the river to start depositing its load further upstream than downstream and keeping said river delta large and vice versa.  Since I do not have the historical dredging etc of the area, but from reading over the years as I seem to love everything about India, is that its main channel was further to the west not long ago.  Now if that is true, from my reading, that would indicate that much of Bangladesh is very very very young fill dirt which means it will be compacting very quickly and shore lines will be changing rapidly.... Is this correct?  Well, I am not sure.  I have not studied it, but pulling "confident" correlation from this far distance without knowing more.... yea, I do not have much hope in that regard.  Nor does anyone else.  It is not a simple problem to say "smoking guN!)

After all we have the Northern Canada observation of raising the ocean levels around the world all by itself.  And the corallary,, where are the ocean basins falling that we do not know?  Oceans are still 70% of this world and we know next to nothing about them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

16 hours ago, markslawson said:

Not sure why you pointed to floods in Bangladesh. The area is known to have had severe floods since records began.  Note that the quote you give is referring to an event of nearly 20 years ago. You have to look at overall trends, not just in Bangladesh and the IPCC was unable to find any convincing evidence of natural trends in floods. Also note that climate is just one factor in any trends in number of deaths and destruction due to such events, and arguably a secondary one. Read the rest of the Wikipedia article you quote. See that they are developing floating schools, ensuring houses are on stilts, raising highways and so on. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the death toll from floods in that area was going down, due to a system of shelters. Trends in GDP (and so more money to spend on flood control and so on) mean vastly more than trends in climate. Leave it with you. 

I mentioned Bangladesh because it's having it yearly............ with fluctuating severity over the years.........

Pardon my ignorant for not being aware what ipcc is about......... But the general natural trend for flooding is following monsoon seasons generally.

You might have been right............. Thanks for sharing. Not sure if I read correctly "floating schools during flood for affected students"?? O.o

If you have time to check out google images on "houses for Bangladesh" or "houses along ganges brahmaputra" when free..... you might be able to notice those stilt houses are natural when they built on top of water........ not an amendment for flood............... and there is something you left out

Quote

These may be great solutions to the problem of flooding, but some cities do not have raised houses or flood shelters. 

There is a general suggestion..... do not stay where it is flooding yearly so that one can rebuild a new house yearly...... move further away or higher up........ or may be not.......... because that is where they have marked (by pooing; peeing or spitting with tags) their land areas and should not move away............  or lose their spots.........:(

Edited by specinho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites