Does Russia and Canada have any incentive to stop global warming?

[burritos]

As 2 nations who are resource rich, the more fossil fuels they sell the richer they get. Global warming will in all likelihood make their habitats more human friendly. What incentives do they have to give a crap about global warming?

[FL_Prius_Driver]

You're late with the "burritos question of the week". Must be bored. However, I'm even more bored, so I'll answer. Yes they care.

Their well being is better off if they are not overwhelmed with immigrants.

[burritos]

Originally Posted by FL_Prius_Driver

You're late with the "burritos question of the week". Must be bored. However, I'm even more bored, so I'll answer. Yes they care.

Their well being is better off if they are not overwhelmed with immigrants.

I was finding myself asking the same questions, good thing the subject screener warns you before you submit the same question.

What kind of immigrants are you talking about? Canada has a bigger land mass than the US but has the population of about California. It has the ability to absorb a few immigrants. Likely, it'll be the richer pay to play Americans. America will likely be the country overrun with immigrants after all we coined the "Give us your poor, your blah blah blah." Canada is going to cherry pick capital rich Americans.

Russia on the other hand, I have no idea.

[Zythryn]

Western Russia and Eastern Canada will be in serious trouble if enough fresh water gets released into the northern atlantic to shut down the main current. That current is responsible for warming up much of Europe and the east part of North America.
While global temps may go up, those regions will actually cool if that happens.
Average temperature is not the most dire result of GW. Longer and more sever droughts and other changes in rainfall will be more of an issue.
Add to that the fact that a large fraction of humanity gets its fresh water off glacial melt (which is decreasing now, and may be gone in the near future) and it really is a lose-lose really big scenario (although I am not aware how many people, if any, in Canada or Russia rely on mountain glacial melt for fresh water).

[Zythryn]

Oh, and let's not forget the melting of the permafrost. Much of Canada's northern infrastructure is built on permafrost. As this melts, things are falling over/apart.
Unlike concerns of sea levels, which affect coastal areas, permafrost melt will affect a much larger area.

[robbyr2]

Not sure about Russia and global warming. They seem pretty excited about an ice-free Arctic Ocean with oil drilling etc.

On the other hand, last I heard, Canada was making a lot of progress in reducing carbon emissions. At least prior to PM Harper.

[burritos]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Western Russia and Eastern Canada will be in serious trouble if enough fresh water gets released into the northern atlantic to shut down the main current. That current is responsible for warming up much of Europe and the east part of North America.
While global temps may go up, those regions will actually cool if that happens.
Average temperature is not the most dire result of GW. Longer and more sever droughts and other changes in rainfall will be more of an issue.
Add to that the fact that a large fraction of humanity gets its fresh water off glacial melt (which is decreasing now, and may be gone in the near future) and it really is a lose-lose really big scenario (although I am not aware how many people, if any, in Canada or Russia rely on mountain glacial melt for fresh water).

Okay. I saw this in the movie "The Day After". Is this the scientific consensus on what is going to happen?

[DaveinOlyWA]

well, would you want to be stuck on a desert island with all the fruit you can eat... plenty of fresh water, shelter... good mild weather, etc??

having everything you need to survive physically and nothing else is not an existence that anyone would want.

besides, GCC (dont refer to it as global warming anymore...too much dissension on that...i call it global climate change now) will also affect them as well. massive deserts will spring up overnight, coastal areas will be destroyed and at a speed that will not allow a comfortable relocation process...iow, all hell will break loose for EVERYONE and that simply makes one with a lot of carbon based fuel the bad man...not an enviable position...

the Beijing Olympics should be testament enough that chinese already suffer a large reduction in lifespans due to air pollution that is only escalating at a faster rate than their conversion to the modern world. they will face much greater challenges just maintaining their fresh water supply....

ya, the global thing is just that... a GLOBAL PROBLEM and unless you a moon man, you crazy if you think it wont affect you.

[jayman]

Originally Posted by robbyr2

On the other hand, last I heard, Canada was making a lot of progress in reducing carbon emissions. At least prior to PM Harper.

Not sure where you got *that* information. Under Chretien, there was a lot of hot air about Kyoto, but under Chretien Canada's total GHG emissions increased 24% - of course GHG "density" decreased but that is statistical obfuscation:

Environment Canada - GHG - CANADA'S 2003 GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY

Note that Harper didn't enter the picture until +2006

Now Dion is going on and on about Carbon Tax and other things. Since the Liberals supposedly "saved" the environment I wonder how they will "save" it again assuming they win a minority gov

[jayman]

As far as "caring" about emissions, I would have to suggest that Canadians lag behind the US in terms of emissions control. The US EPA standards are far stricter than comparable Canadian standards. The US has CERCLA, aka "Superfund," with no such comparable environmental restoration and cleanup in Canada.

Canadians might assume they are more enviromentally friendly than Americans, but the truth is fuzzy. Personally, I would like to see Canada adopt American emissions standards.

All 3 major political parites - Liberal, PC, and NDP - have made various noises about the environment. Federally, both Liberals and Conservatives have run the country, with about equal results for the environment.

Provincially, the socialist NDP had a long reign in Saskatchewan until last year. Their environmental response was quite poor, especially with radioactive contamination from uranium mining operations in northern Saskatchewan.

Here in Manitoba, the NDP have made odd decisions regarding farming as a source of outfall to Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipeg. Even though the official report disagreed with them

http://www.cecmanitoba.ca/File/Hog%2...%20Report2.pdf

Like anywhere else, political bulls*** can help a party get elected and stay in office.