The impact of climate change is being felt in disparate regions across the globe. As the City of Montreal today experiences 9 degrees Celsius and rain in January, the high price of gold draws thousands of miners to a region of south-east Peru where deforestation and the high levels of mercury used in mining has led to fears of an imminent ecological disaster, as Dan Collyns reports. How are poor communities to adapt to climate change, especially in countries where basic needs are not met?
Communities and industry need to start examining more closely adaptation strategies in order to respond to climate change challenges, especially in northern Canada, low-lying countries and regions subject to storms and hurricanes (severe weather). In Canada, the thawing of ice roads disrupts mining activities and adds additional costs to fly-in material and resources. On the social side, communities are being displaced due to changing habitat and biodiversity.
How should governments respond? And industry? Should adpatation to climate change be seen as the next emerging issue? Or shall we wait until disaster has struck? NRCan has a program underway but perhaps the government would be better to tackle the issue head-on instead. Makes sense?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Hello Grace,
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunately an equilibrium matter between economics, politics and business, on which must be based any answer to climate change.
I assisted last week to a presentation made by Karel Ménard from David Suzuki Foundation (I hope to get it) where he made a clear link between temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration. He added also a world population curve evolution that made me think this may be a fundamental cause of climate change, since it correlated the atmospheric CO2 concentration and then temperature. Rapidly seen, it looked really that human activities are at the source of this present climate change.
So which are the solutions? There is probably none unique solution, but if anthropogenic influence must decrease on climate change, this calls for reduction of human activity on Earth. But if this activity doesn't decrease, it must be made differently, but how?
I'm frightened to say that, but does this means that a reduction of the world population is now necessary? After all, within only a century, we passed from a population of around 1 billion up to now near of 8 billions. This is a lot of CO2 only emitted by breathing, and an aspect never really examined for CO2 increase in atmosphere.
Industries are part too, as well as transportation. But for transportation, nothing immediate will be done even if this activity has a contribution percentage in Québec higher than the one of the industry. But industry is right on MDDEP target.
To follow...
Grace and all other readers,
ReplyDeleteReferring to my earlier comment, I wanted to share with you this article from Journal of Health Science, released in 2009.
http://jhs.pharm.or.jp/data/55%281%29/55_125.pdf
It shows clear relationship between population, CO2 concentration in atmosphere and global temperature increase.
My sincere advice is that nature will itself regulate to respond to anthropogenic agression. From another article I've seen earlier, much older, there are some other interesting findings relatively to the same topic.
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/becker/prtm320/commons/popco2.html
Have a good reading!
Will climate change be seen as the next emerging issue? Probably not. Those who gain benefit for it have far to much power to prevent this for happening...
ReplyDeleteI believe the emerging trend goes as follows: governments acting more an more as problem managers and less an less as social solution architects. The tipping point will be achieved as Western societies reach peak oil. From there on is downhill... Now more than ever communities must unite and revert this alarming trend before is to late.
They must take control of the channels through which influence and opinion is shape. Transform ideas into matter and ultimately make this revolutionary actions matter.
A.