Go north
October 20, 2010 8:20 AM   Subscribe

What I've always wanted- an atlas of the world's vulnerability to climate change (downloadable pdf on page).
posted by leibniz (11 comments total) 10 users marked this as a favorite
Well, India’s fucked.
posted by him at 9:14 AM on October 20, 2010

I'm pretty sure Arctic regions should be shaded blue, in that climate change affects the Arctic faster and with more intensity than other places in the south, and the people who live there also have little in the way of resources to deal with the problem. "Go north" is not even close to a solution, since, for example, keystone ecological attributes such as permafrost, which make human habitation possible in the Arctic, are disappearing as the terrain warms.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:25 AM on October 20, 2010

Interesting that India and China (the most populous areas of it) are at high risk.

I propose a peace treaty between Canada, Russia and Australia. The eventual post-apocalyptic super-powers.
OK, Libya and Mongolia can join in the fun, too.
posted by Theta States at 9:34 AM on October 20, 2010

It's heavily weighted by population and wealth. Populations in the Arctic are low and the countries that own it are relatively wealthy. That's not to say Arctic eco systems aren't fucked but the people should be able to manage. Even the loss of permafrost won't be a serious impediment long term as it can be engineered around.

Anyone see someplace to see the full list? I'm interested on how they ranked Canada.
posted by Mitheral at 9:38 AM on October 20, 2010

Even the loss of permafrost won't be a serious impediment long term as it can be engineered around.

Faith in engineering is what got us into this mess in the first place.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:16 AM on October 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Neat, it's for how fucked countries are.

Their factor is really 42 measurements combined to form a single indicator. Not just social, but also economic and environmental factors - exposure to climate-related natural disasters and sea-level rise; human sensitivity, in terms of population patterns, development, natural resources, agricultural dependency and conflicts; future vulnerability by considering the adaptive capacity of a country’s government and infrastructure to combat climate change.

I'm not sure how to interpret this text on the map page:

organisations with operations or assets in these countries will become more exposed to associated risks, such as climate-related natural disasters, resource security and conflict. Understanding climate vulnerability will help companies make their investments more resilient to unexpected change.

Is it "get your money out, those countries are fucked?"

Useful map, I suppose, if from a creepy agency also advising about "Human rights mapping, monitoring, impact assessment and auditing".
posted by yoHighness at 11:22 AM on October 20, 2010

Must preview after editing. must preview ...
posted by yoHighness at 11:23 AM on October 20, 2010

I will say one more thing, here's a map of which countries have the most foreign private investors (although they don't call it that). Compare this map.
posted by yoHighness at 11:45 AM on October 20, 2010

Even the loss of permafrost won't be a serious impediment long term as it can be engineered around.

Oh do pray tell what the engineering solution will be to the now rotting organic material that releases Methane?
posted by rough ashlar at 11:48 AM on October 20, 2010

Just what we needed -- actual cartographic proof for those in the US who don't want to care about climate change.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 12:48 PM on October 20, 2010

Why are the parts of Germany which are closer to the (rising) ocean at lower risk than the inland areas?
posted by paisley henosis at 6:00 PM on October 20, 2010

« Older Even toys need culture   |   Tokyo drifts ... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments