China’s Industrial Revolution and its Consequences
China has seen rapid industrial expansion since the late 1970s. During much of this expansion, the focus has been on exports, with profits reinvested in industry and agricultural modernization. But China has also moved into the mass consumption stage of modernization. There’s now a sizeable middle class with Western-style consumption habits, and even industrial workers and farmers have increasing access to electricity, electrical goods, and, to some extent, automobiles.
China now mines and burns more coal than any other country; researchers estimate that the resulting air pollution causes over a million premature deaths a year. As of 2005, China has become the largest contributor to global carbon dioxide emissions, just exceeding that of the United States. Nonetheless, China’s per capital emissions of 5.8 tonnes are only about one quarter of per capita emissions in the United States.
In international negotiations, China has fought hard to protect its right to higher per capita emissions, even as it has tried to decrease pollution by mandating more efficient technologies and pollution controls. It remains to be seen whether the Chinese industrial revolution will continue to follow Western patterns, with pollution levels rising with living standards until (1) affluence reaches a sizeable majority of the population; and (2) the downsides of pollution produces a political backlash, with far greater resources going to pollution control.
Read more about China and modernization. Have a look at Arthur Mols’ article which offers an interesting argument about the effects of China’s rising standard of living. Watch the film Up the Yangtze (which is available for download for a cost through iTunes).
What does the film say about the meanings of modernization? What choices and consequences does modernization confront the Chinese with? To what extent can what’s happening in the film be explained by China’s embrace of a Western pattern of growth?
pdawbney, 
yuyu, 
rach510, 
yongzhewang, 
alegzdins, 
clairegcrowther, and 13 others are discussing. 
Negin Mirriahi
alanhan
philvanhuizen
rsamfenn
yongzhewang 12:31 pm on January 9, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
At the current rate of climate change Canada will most likely end up being a net loser with the warming temperatures. According to the “Climate Prosperity Diagram”, the few positive effects of warming temperatures are greatly outnumbered and outdone by the many negatives effects. With a quick look at the diagram, you may say that increasing temperatures may bring about a longer growing season for our vast prairies, but that won’t be of much help if most of that land is at risk of desertification. You may also say that it would be of much help for Canada economically if the Northwest Passage was opened for trade and transport purposes, but that won’t benefit us much if it will cost us more when the shipping through the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence waterways becomes more limited due to lowering water levels. After the negatives balance out the positives, there are still extra negatives left over, resulting in Canada being a net loser when all is calculated. However, Canada does have the opportunity and the resources available to take advantage of the limited amounts of positive effects that climate change brings along. If it can’t be stopped, the best course of action would be to use what’s available while we still have the ability to do so. For example, we can take advantage of the ability to explore northern oil fields, the ability to increase hydroelectric power production in Quebec due to the change in water levels, and so on. We can maximize the positives in order to reduce the net influence of the negatives, and use climate change to our advantage. However, if possible, the best course of action would be for Canada to help contribute to the global battle against climate change, to help delay or prevent any of the above from happening. As a wealthy country, Canada can contribute to the global battle in ways other than reducing our own greenhouse emissions. We have the capability to send resources, people, and technological know-how to rapidly developing countries which are not as focused on the future of the environment as much as their current rate of growth. These countries have the capability to be massive environmental hazards in the future, and Canada would do both ourselves and the world good by sharing what we know or have with them.
clairegcrowther 8:44 pm on January 10, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with your comment, particularly on how to maximize the benefits by taking advantage of the opportunities given to us by climate change. It will be hard for us to adapt to such a shift in lifestyle, but by taking advantage of these changes we are adapting. Climate change has caused an increase in pine beetle infestation which has damaged the logging industry. Perhaps by taking away efforts to salvage the dying industry, turn our attention to other sources available to us in Canada (like you mentioned: oil fields).
clairegcrowther 8:25 pm on January 10, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
As seen in the “Climate Prosperity Diagram”, with even the slightest increase in temperatures, Canada -and the rest of the world for that matter- is deeply effected. When considering whether climate change causes Canada to be a net loser or winner, one must observe both short-term and long-term perspectives. From a short-term perspective, Canada is in some ways a net winner. For example, agriculture will be given a boost. A longer growing season means more crop production. Also, as the Arctic ice sheet no longer becomes present in the summer, the North-West passage becomes available for faster and more efficient trade. While these are positive effects, they are brief. The diagram shows that there is a cap, an endpoint, to these benefits. The temperatures will continue to rise, eventually leading to drought and the inability to produce an abundance of crops. Warmer temperatures mean more evaporation which will cause sea levels to decline, making the North West Passage harder to cross. This leads to the long-term effects of climate change in Canada. Rising temperatures create numerous long-term problems which will effect Canada’s economy, wildlife, ecosystems, and social as well as political relationships. For example, ecosystems will slowly be destroyed and replaced, resulting in a shift across the world. Furthermore, social issues will arise due to lack of resources (such as competition for water). In conclusion, Canada will be a net loser due to the negative factors generated by anthropogenic climate change.
Since this issue is moving at full speed, Canadian citizens should educated in and ready to adapt to climate change. Citizens need to be aware of the drastic changes that may come in the future and how to be prepared for them.
army1080 9:21 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I like your point that citizens should be prepared to adapt to not necessarily take advantage of rising temperatures. Its something we are going to have to deal with, we just need to recognize it, plan for it and hopefully minimize it.
ngoossen 8:12 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree. The thing is that even if we try to do as much as possibly to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, etc. it won’t have an immediate effect. Average temperatures will still rise and we will still need to be able to adapt to the changes before the effects of the reduction in ggs is evident.
army1080 9:16 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
What immediately struck me in reviewing the “Climate Prosperity Diagram” was that all the potential benefits were of an economic context. There were no benefits highlighted in terms of ecological, social, or health concerns. The impacts that are presented as benefits could be viewed as negatives to all those who do not profit by the resulting impacts. Increases in Hydroelectric potential will result in detrimental impacts to rivers. Larger crop yields will facilitate an increased demand for agricultural land (which has its own set of environmental impacts), and the exploitation of the resources in the north is going to help accelerate the rise in temperatures, throw fuel on the fire so to speak.
As temperatures rise Canada is going to be in a powerful position. Canada is going to be gaining access to resources that the rest of the world is going to be starving for. This certainly puts Canada in the position to be a net winner. However, Canada as a country must look at the impacts of exploiting these resources; continuing to supply the world with excess fossil fuels is accelerating climate change and having detrimental impacts on the rest of the world. The only way for Canada to be a net winner as a direct result of warming temperatures is to be a leader in the development of new technologies that will help future generations minimize the human impact on climate change.
C.Armstrong
alegzdins 10:55 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree that financial considerations seem to dominate federal decisions on environmental policy. This is sadly unsurprising, as our economy treats a clean environment as an externality. As such, the government faces no financial penalties for exploiting more oil. However, perhaps we could use this revenue we are currently gaining from oil sands development to fund research and development into clean, alternative energies?
deuper 10:33 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree that it is important to invest into new “greener” technology, but part of the problem that needs to be considered can be seen with the electric car. While it seems as though it is clean compared to the average car, we need to think about where this energy is coming. If it’s coming from burning coal, we aren’t doing the environment any favours.
-Douglas Euper
mwanzia 2:49 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
There is definitely an emphasis on the economic benefits that Canada could potentially receive in the Climate Prosperity Diagram, however there are some implied benefits in a few of the other areas. For instance, consider the measures that one might take in order to protect oneself from natural disasters or disease. The result would be sturdier houses or structures with an increased capability to shield those inside. There is, of course, the matter of affordability. However I believe that the more necessary heating/ cooling systems become, the easier they will be to obtain
alegzdins 10:27 pm on January 11, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Canada is poised to be a net loser as the world temperature continues to increase. Many animals are either going to lose their habitats or be forced to migrate north to colder climates. Other animals that previously couldn’t survive in our climate will be able to thrive, which could lead to disastrous results. This has already been witnessed with the spread the mountain pine beetle and could be the case if mosquitoes are able to spread West Nile or ticks are able to spread Lyme disease. An increasing temperature would also cause the ice caps to continue to melt, which may lead to polar bears becoming extinct and cause the sea level to rise further. An increased sea level could lead to faster erosion of the coastline and parts of Canada becoming flooded. Conversely, rivers may start to dry up due to evaporation causing a higher concentration of pollutants and nutrients, which would put our water at risk. The only advantages that Canada would experience from climate change are the access to more oil, gas, and mineral sources as the permafrost begins to thaw and a longer growing season in the prairies. Canada could attempt to benefit from these positive changes but we should really be focusing on preventing future warming and all of the disadvantages facing us before doing anything else. In addition to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Canada should support any fund that is being set up to help poorer nations adapt to climate change and deal with natural disasters.
Alex Legzdins
adammarkus2 6:46 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Although I agree that every negative effect that you have discussed above is undoubtably detrimental for Canada, I believe that many of the issues involving the ecosystems are irreparable and inevitable. I strongly believe that it is more important for Canada to focus on not falling behind in global trade, relocating infrastructure, and investing in futre technologies. Adaptation in the transport sector will require a large number of adaptive measures to be taken into consideration. Although recent literature suggests that this situation may be manageable, the threat of any damage to this sector would affect the largest amount of people. Systems such as ARWIS (Advanced Road Weather Information Systems), which is used primarily for winter-maintenance decisions, or Automated Identification System (AIS) for navigation, which is used to transmit information between ships and between the shore and ships, must be well maintained and continue to have large amounts of funds directed its way.
rach510 10:52 am on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I strongly agree with your point about changing of habitats and environment for different speicies around the world and especially Canada since temperature tends to be a lot lower in Canada, and if temperature gradually increases, there would be a huge impact upon our ecosystem. It is true that the only advantage for Canada due to climage change is having longer growing season and easier access to raw materials on the other side of the world. I agree with you that Canada should support any fund and help poorer nation with this issue, but I also beleive that other countries should also be aware of this factor and also see how climate change would also affect their society, and hopefully the world would be more aware of this issue and act upon solving it together.
rach510 10:53 am on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Taking a detail look at the Climate Prosperity Diagram, I believe Canada is poised to be a net loser due to the warming temperature. Referring back to the lecture being given on Tuesday, I remember Tina loo saying how climate change is not only increasing worldwide, but the temperature is alternating differently, as temperature in the pole is increasing, and decreasing in equator. This already produces a great impact since initially marine plants and terrestrial animals living in Canada are used to the cold environmental habitat, the increase in temperature would only alter their living environment and therefore poise a threat to their survival. As shown in the diagram, this might also result in risk of extinction of species that is incapable of alternating such change within their homogenous state and adapt to a different living environment. Increase in temperature not only affects the ecosystem but it also generates risk to people from unexpected differentiation of weather extremes that our society may not be well equip for. As discussed and commented, the increase in temperature only brings an advantage to Canada within a small percentage, and the affect only helps us within a short period of time. In the long run, climate change would most likely only cause negative impacts upon our economy, industries, ecosystem and the society as a whole. I believe that these numbers of impacts and prediction of events should be exposed to the public for a better understanding of what are the consequences that we may face later on if temperature continually increases and alternates, and how small changes like this without resolving would only build up and result in bigger issues later on. If individuals in the society have a better understanding of the issues, then there is a better chance more ideas can formulate and express to help prevent such dramatic change as a society.
cadams9 4:22 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I like and concur the interesting take on the temperature fluctuating at the poles and equator and the effect on animal habitats. Also if animals are having a harder time living comfortably or even finding food they may try to turn to human resources. This could cause a hassle for humans. Example bears in Whistler already walk comfortably into restaurant patios, they may become more ferocious and greedy for human resources such as food. Although humans have to not only try to keep the climate stable for themselves but also for animals so they too don’t have an affect on humans.
cadams9 4:22 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
-Chris Adams
saayadirlewanger 4:43 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Although I agree with the point drawn by many concerning the fact that raising environmental awareness among developing countries and providing them funds are significant in order to build a ‘healthier’ planet Earth, I nevertheless believe that it is also important to consider the consequences in Canada by doing so and the reality in the reasons why LEDCs are less focused on acting in more environmentally-friendly ways. By saying this, I insinuate that for example, although Canada is conscious about its ability to financially intervene to the most ‘vulnerable’ in the world with its GDP revenues, for example; the latter ‘donation’ might not directly mean that these developing countries will benefit from it. As it is known, who can make sure that the given funds will be used for environmental improvements and not directly flowing into the hands of a corrupt government or to a disorganized administration? I would like to believe that environmental projects should be one of the priorities in any country; however, developing countries might not be flexible enough as the rich nations to focus on climate change due to their already-difficult obstacles that need to be approached, like starvation, malnutrition or political conflicts. These limitations, I opine, first need to be treated and resolved before the population have enough energy and credibility to walk along the line of environmental consciousness. Moreover, in terms of educating the poor, I acknowledge the many increasing developing strategies for the environment that are taking place in many impoverished countries; however, some forms of environmental degradation such as deforestation is, in some countries, seen a cultural practice to revere their ancestors. As a consequence, although it is essential to share the knowledge and ideas of the Western world, I feel like it is more important to create strategies adapted to the developing countries who have different interpretations on the environment, and to listen to them by giving them a voice as well as primarily making an improved and more secure government in LEDCs in order for them to have a positive response to take these crucial environmental actions.
adammarkus2 6:21 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
After researching the affects of climate change that is expected to occur across Canada, by means of the “Climate Prosperity Diagram,” it is obvious that there are many negative effects global climate change, as well as a few positive. Critical sectors of the economy are well illustrated in the diagram enabling a simple dissemination of the situation. In each of these areas Canada is expected to experience and overwhelming amount of negative affects compared to beneficial effects; leading to the assumption that Canada will be a net loser with warming temperatures. However, as compared to other areas of the globe, with a strong economy and a vast amount of agricultural resources, Canada may be viewed as a “winner” in the long-run. Returning the loser supposition, a good example of the offsetting negative affects is that, even in the most promising beneficial effects of the change, although in the service industry access to the Northwest Passage will enable a greater amount of commercial shipping and tourism, undoubtedly posing for a profitable future market, the negative affects of a most costly shipping route, due to lowering water levels through the Great Lakes and St.Lawrence Seaway, may offset these gains. In terms of taking advantage of the change in climate, I feel as if it is evident that Canada should always prepare to take advantage of changing circumstances if there are clear foreseen benefits; particularly situations that are as predictable as climate change. However, it is important that Canada attempt to negate any negative effects that will occur, in both local and global communities. In terms of these initiatives, for the most part, it is up to the Canadian government to support the alleviation of greenhouse gases we produce as a country. Banding with global leaders in the United Nations, funding regional and national initiatives, adopting new technologies, and educating the population are critical steps in being recognized as a significant contributor of change.
selenerose 8:17 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with the comparison to there countries that Canada will appear as a “winner”. It is probably one of the best suited countries to deal with an increased temperature. I like the attitude that Canada can handle whatever comes its way, and I feel that the people and animals will adapt and develop new lifestyles that will accommodate a warmer country.
yongzhewang 8:43 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I agree with your point that educating the population will eventually contribute to the battle against climate change. I see climate change education going down the same path as smoking did in North America. A few decades ago, it was known that smoking isn’t good for your health, but it wasn’t as lobbied and taught in schools from K-12 like today. If climate change goes down the same path where the changes start becoming blatantly detrimental to Canada as a whole, it might even be possible that instead of classes such as Planning 10 in high school, we might have Environmental History 10 or something along those lines. Either way, it will probably still take a few decades from now for people to recognize that something must be done.
dgibson 12:46 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that it is easy to say that Canada is in a relatively “winning” position when we compare our nation on a global scale. The main issue with this statement is that we are a country that contributes greatly to emissions of Green House Gasses. Our contribution to GHG emissions is catalyzing the warming and melting global ice reserves. This is causing global sea level rise, which is greatly affecting many small island nations such as the Maldives. We are the cause so are we really winners and now do we have a responsibility to help the nations that we are destroying?
cadams9 8:08 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I too like others think Canada will be a loser with the warming temperatures. Like we heard in class every place on earth has its own unique foods they can grow in their area. Canada and other Countries rely on each other for their resources. What would happen if everyone was growing the same food? I think people are not taking enough of an action on these types of things because it scares them. People do not want to think about the earth and how sensitive it really is. Although on the other hand it is not a lack of effort from some people. Vancouver for example, is currently trying to be the greenest city by the year 2020. The goal for Vancouver is to reduce garbage by 50% and build more energy efficient buildings, along with other goals. The most noticeable project underway is more bus lanes to promote public transit and bike lanes. Vancouver has a long way to go to make an impact on the warming temperatures. As we saw in class Canada and BC is producing a horrible amount of carbon dioxide into the air per person. Although Canada may be a winner with an increase in the climate temperature. They may be able to grow different foods. All in all Canada has a long way to go if they want to help the world stop the continuing increase in temperature. People turn their backs on this subject because they think it may not hurt them in their life time or they are scared to think of the consequences that are very possible to happen within the near future.
selenerose 8:12 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think in the situation of of Global Warming and according to the Climate Prosperity Diagram, Canada would be a “winner”, at least compared to other countries/continents. Since Canada is mostly a cold country with lots of land currently unable to be used for agricultural purposes, the increased temperature would open up for more available land for farming and living purposes. Although more mild areas like Vancouver and the lower mainland may lose their fertility for crops, new places up north would become ideal for agriculture. So as some parts of the land become inadequate, other land would be able to be taken over with those purposes. It would be more of a shift in where people could profit and live in Canada. Of course there are the negatives to an increased temperature in Canada. Glacier mountains would lose their size and the perm frost melting times would come earlier and more rapid. This would have negative affects on the wildlife that depend on the ice or snow. Some species may die out, but I feel that new species would come into existence with the different temperature. People and animals would adapt and change their lifestyle to suit a warmer Canada. I feel that since this is the situation we have to deal with, Canada may as well take advantage of it and use all the positive aspects possible -like more warmer land for agriculture and living. Of course reducing greenhouse gasses emissions would help slow down Global Warming, but Canada could stop participating in “non-green” international events or exchanges. For example the Olympics are are a major source of unnecessary greenhouse emissions. Although they’re a much loved tradition, it would be so much more environmentally friendly to not build a new olympic city every four years. The set ups from previous years would work just ass well to host the Olympics.
deuper 10:05 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
When you say that “Vancouver and the lower mainland may lose their fertility for crops” i think it is more adequate to say that Vancouver and the lower mainland could expect to grow different crops, then at present, that are more suitable to the rise in temperatures.
-Douglas Euper
yuyu 6:52 pm on January 14, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I do agree to your point that we should not build new Olympic cities every 4 years. Many people point out that the development of a new Olympic city contributes to the country’s economy, but in the reality, it just accelerates industrialization and worsens the situation. There are movements that consider about the environment, like in the Vancouver Olympic, heat energy from disposable water was used.
voyt92 8:17 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
According to the “Climate Prosperity Diagram,” and the discussion above I strongly agree with the vast majority of what everyone is saying. I would say that yes there are a number of things that can help Canada; however, in the long run it can tremendously harm us and the rest of the world with the climate rising we can see how some cultures will benefit and others will not. We must be prepared for what the world will have to do to better prepare ourselves for or rapidly changing climate. If we do not prepare ourselves we may end up in more shock than what we expected.
-Haley Voytechek
ngoossen 8:18 pm on January 12, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
While I do agree that in general is seems that Canada will come out as a “loser”, I think that a good part of the outcome depends on how well we plan for and adapt to these changes. Obviously if we refuse to inform ourselves and keep relying on certain industries that won’t be as prosperous due to the environmental changes that are happening and will increase in the future, then we will be “losers”. If we are able to adapt and remain prosperous under new conditions then i think that in itself makes us “winners”.
Conversely, by choosing to just adapt when change happens also might make us losers if that is all we plan to do, rather than trying to prevent or reverse the changes that will happen
dgibson 12:34 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I think that by observing the “Climate Prosperity Diagram”, Canada most definitely appears to be a climate change loser. This “Climate Prosperity Diagram” is effective at covering different factors that will be affected by climate change. Unfortunately, this diagram only shows how Canada will be affected by a changing climate with increasing temperature and there is little reference made to a time scale by which these issues will occur. Observing the cause will ultimately offer the most effective solutions. The “Climate Prosperity Diagram” was very doom and gloom, focusing mostly on negative aspects of climate change. There were however some positive aspects in the area of tourism and industry. While tourism and industry may be beneficial for the economy, they will only add to Green House Gas emissions. In order to fully take advantage of new tourism opportunities, the focus should be on tourism and import/export with a smaller carbon footprint. It is up to Canadians and the government to implement strategies for adaptation and mitigation to decrease emissions of Green House Gasses. This will help to reduce the severity of climate change on varying scales. There is much research in the area of alternative fuels or ways in which to reduce our energy consumption. I believe that there is too much focus on the outcomes of climate change and the ways to adapt such as changing the crops grown in an area. There is a need for a stronger focus on how to reduce our energy consumption and find alternative fuels to really help the world with its changing climate.
-Darah Gibson
mwanzia 2:37 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
It appears as though Canada is inclined to be a net loser with regards to the increase in temperatures. Although she may benefit from the climate change in several ways, the overall impact is likely to be negative. There are too many aspects that are being compromised: the health and welfare of the inhabitants, the availability of resources, the habitat of many species of animals, and so on.
Canada should definitely take advantage of climate change, and embrace the potential positive outcomes that could come out of it. For instance, any land that is made viable for cultivation (due to the increase in temperatures) should definitely be put into use, as it would serve to increase production levels resulting in a boom in the agricultural industry. The best way Canadians can hope to contribute to global efforts concerning global warming would be to enforce the use of public transport as a replacement for private cars and motor vehicles. Already a relatively clean, trash- free country, Canada should venture to promote their programs in other countries. Programs and systems separating compost from garbage and recyclable materials like the one at UBC would do so well in other institutions across the globe, and could be introduced as a way of life. Implementing those in educational as well as professional settings could be very successful, considering the children would grow up knowing how to conserve materials in order to preserve our environment.
saayadirlewanger 9:30 am on January 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
According to the Climate Prosperity Diagram, I have felt that Canada will be more of a net loser due to the consequences of climate change. Many elements within the diagram show how Canada will face difficulties, such as how important living beings (plants and animals) are becoming extinct and disabling important biological exchange within its surroundings that help regulate the ecosystem’s abiotic factors. Although I do agree how Canada will benefit from its new forms of agriculture and food production that will be enabled as a result of increased temperatures; however, I feel like this could in turn affect the Canadian government. This is so since other countries (that will have no access to the resources produced by Canada) will become dependent on Canada’s foods and materials. As a consequence, Canada will be prone to produce more and thus, trade more. This then would mean that there will be more CO2 produced (especially if agricultural techniques are not shifted since the soil is one of the world’s largest carbon sinks), and this could therefore lead to a further warming of temperatures. Ultimately, after a warming of more than 2 to 3 degrees higher than the present temperature, many important carbohydrates or vitamins, that were of an important source of nutrient to the Canadians, will be lost and they will need to adapt to other foods and are likely to be constrained to accustom to a different diet. Moreover, with the increasing demand of foreign aid by other countries facing more severe aftermath of the global change, although the Canadian could be seen as a winner due to its economic advantages to provide them their services and products, I feel like Canada could be more of a loser in this situation since they will start having an imperialist attitude towards these countries, and thus, will have the duty to ‘look after’ them, making them dependent on Canada. This could result in negative responses from the Canadian population due to its nation being almost too focused on assisting the ‘vulnerable’ and offering their already-limited resources. This social discontentment could perhaps lead to conflict between the population and the government, and perhaps making the nation’s political horizon more unstable.
yuyu 12:35 pm on January 13, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Since the idea of global warming was something catastrophic for me, it was surprising to see that Canada actually had this much advantages from global warming. The prosperity of agriculture and the access to the Arctic region are two big gains. We may call Canada as a “winner” from global warming in terms that there would be other countries with much less advantages, but considering all the problems in these 8 categories Canada is definitely to be a loser. Global warming would change the natural environment drastically and human would have to risk their living environment and lifestyle; what’s the point of not making actions toward preventing? The issue of global warming is understood by many governments, but moreover must be realized by corporate members who really has the authority to change and stop the effects of industrialization.
pdawbney 9:51 pm on January 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I was also surprised by the number of possible advantages for Canada as a result of global warming. I believe that the access to the Arctic for tourism purposes is incredibly positive for the economy as many people would be interested and excited to visit a previously inaccessible area of natural beauty.
pdawbney 10:04 pm on January 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
After reading through previous blog entries on this subject, I am struggling to add any new information or perspectives.
Both speaches direct their plea for help towards powerful leaders in the Western World. This reinforces the fact that developed countries are the main culprits for climate change and are responsible for producing the highest carbon emissions/using up more than their “fair share” of carbon sinks.
President Nasheed puts forward the argument that it is “in all of our interests” to take action against climate change and without this action “we (meaning the Maldives as a country) will die”. This is a stark message and he makes the problem relevant to everyone, and delivers his appeal in a way that many people would find hard to ignore or brush off.
I believe that both Shelia Watt-Cloutier and President Nasheed direct their requests to every single individual, whether they reside in the developed or developing world. The Inuit have a strong sense of community and brotherhood, and I believe they are appealing to everyone to act as a global community against climate change, and only through everyones efforts, can any difference be made.
pdawbney 10:50 pm on January 16, 2012 Permalink | Log in to Reply
apologies – this is for the week 3 discussion.