As a Canadian living in Canada, I’ve always thought that concern over global warming was misplaced. So what if it went up a few degrees. Overall, life in our northern climate might actually be more pleasant.
In a new book, The World In 2050
By the year 2050 Canada could be enjoying newfound status as a global superpower blessed with a developed north, plenty of fresh water, a growing population and new shipping lanes through the Arctic.
That’s the theory put forward in Laurence C. Smith’s new book “The World in 2050″ — a scientific exploration of the effects of climate change over the next 40 years.
According to Smith’s 40-year projection, global warming will free up northern natural resources such as oil, gas and water. That in turn will attract immigrants and lead to new infrastructure and development for northern rim countries — NORCs, as he calls them — at a time when southern countries will be running out of resources and seeing their populations fall.
Of course, the underlying climate alarmist scenario in the book portends disaster for other parts of the world. But if this is the case, why should Canada actually pay to address the issue while forgoing these potential benefits? Maybe the other parts of the world should be paying us.
September 26, 2010 at 6:27 pm
I wouldn’t count on it. Some scientists are claiming that we are entering into a new Ice Age. Just what we need here in Canada-a longer winter!
September 26, 2010 at 8:57 pm
Start up the Hummer
January 20, 2011 at 3:15 pm
The reason is due to basic human morality. We are global community, how ethical would it be to kick back with our pina coladas while whole island nations are submerged, millions are displaced by rising waters and many die to food shortages due to desertification. We are lucky to live in Canada, yes. What will we do when they all come clamouring to our borders to let them all in?
January 13, 2012 at 4:13 pm
“Of course, the underlying climate alarmist scenario in the book portends disaster for other parts of the world. But if this is the case, why should Canada actually pay to address the issue while forgoing these potential benefits? Maybe the other parts of the world should be paying us.”
That sounds like an ideal proposal for climate extortion. “Pay us to not do the things that will benefit us and kill you”.
As opposed to the normal proposed model “We benefit from the emission of these GHGs both directly (economic growth) and indirectly (better climate for us), so we’ll share some of that wealth to help you deal with the harms our activity causes you.”
Responsibility or extortion? Which approach would Green Grift support?