Ahh, gotcha. I didn’t have time to do a full read of the article, so I had to skim/speed read through it and didn’t catch if they talked about the potential for coffee to be grown elsewhere.
One of the dirty little secrets of Global Warming is that there is a pretty good-sized swath of the world that would benefit (over the long term) from an increase in temperature. Russia and Canada would see a fair amount of terrain that is currently tundra turn into decent pasture-land or farmland over time, just to name the obvious examples. And yeah, Florida and Georgia may eventually produce the finest coffee in the world.
Of course, all that is more than paid for with other areas becoming utterly uninhabitable or seeing what is now prime farmland turn into scrub desert… not to mention many cities being flooded. But there will be a few winners scattered among the ecological upheaval.
If the Russian tundra thaws, then we’re totally fucked, given the release of methane that would result.
Well maybe Georgia, Florida will be mostly underwater. And it wont matter if places like Nebraska and Iowa can’t produce food for them anymore.
According to this map, when the sea level rises 7 meters I will have beachfront property. I’m so lucky. You know what that costs?
The future of humanity.
sliver of optimism
Like most government experts they’ll just make up stuff.
So cynical. I’m sure Fox and RWM will be happy to oblige with providing a list of experts.
Just a realist. To be an “expert” doesn’t take much in most courts. Hell, most things people accept as true like fingerprints and ballistics aren’t even reliable.
Their “experts” will be hand-picked climate deniers. Something like 90% of them originate in right-wing think tanks, I’m sure the GOP will be able to find as many as they need and if not the Kochs can buy more.
If the think tanks can’t produce sufficient climate change deniers, the axlotl tanks will.
When Koch funded climate deniers in 2012, they concluded that AGW was actually real.
An appeals court Monday struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s 90-day suspension of new emission standards on oil and gas wells, a decision that could set back the Trump administration’s broad legal strategy for rolling back Obama-era rules.
In a 2-to-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the EPA had the right to reconsider a 2016 rule limiting methane and smog-forming pollutants emitted by oil and gas wells but could not delay the effective date while it sought to rewrite the regulation.
Monday’s court ruling was sharply worded at points, with the judges dismissing “the flimsiness” of the EPA’s “claim that regulated entities had no opportunity to comment” on one aspect of the methane rule.
“The administrative record thus makes clear that industry groups had ample opportunity to comment on all four issues on which EPA granted reconsideration, and indeed, that in several instances the agency incorporated those comments directly into the final rule,” the judges wrote.
This is pretty much just based off temperature, so you don’t see some of the other effects…such as coastal areas being swamped in some places. Still, interesting analysis.
And here I was throwing my used cat litter away. If only I understood economics as well as Rick Perry. If I had saved it all, I would have a massive supply, which generates demand!
And that’s the value of FUD. Good job Exxon et al.