Already, Bangladesh has invested 10 million taka, the equivalent of about $150,000, to build cyclone shelters and create a storm early-warning system. Earlier this year, it allocated another $50 million to the country's agriculture and health budgets to help "climate-proof" certain development sectors.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/bangladesh-prepares-for-climate/
Topic: The people of banaladesh are suffering from climate change (Read 177 times)
^^^ Good! Now we know which countries to thank for more CO2. If we could double the CO2 in our atmosphere, plants might grow twice as well, we could feed the world much easier on much less land, for lots less expense.
Thanks going out to these CO2-producing countries.
Thanks going out to these CO2-producing countries.
Yes, exactly. The opposition is both dispiriting and utterly predictable. And it really doesn't help that the nations worst affected by climate change are the poorest and least influential. We may need climate effects to worsen before the powerful start to take notice... maybe once Miami is underwater?
Here is a list of countries that have the highest per capita CO2 emissions:
5 out of the top 10 countries are in the middle east and historically they have refused to act in any form against the emissions. However the blame always fall on developed countries such as the United States and Australia. Slowing down climate change is a combined responsibility and the developed nations can't do everything on their own. What about a 50% levy on crude oil exports from the middle east, to fight the climate change?
You can already see what kind of opposition he is facing. A lot of rich and powerful people want to keep things exactly the way they are. They can't bear the thought of losing any of what they already have, or even slowing down their rate of acquisition, even though the lives of millions or billions hang in the balance... even if it meant killing us all.
Yes, exactly. The opposition is both dispiriting and utterly predictable. And it really doesn't help that the nations worst affected by climate change are the poorest and least influential. We may need climate effects to worsen before the powerful start to take notice... maybe once Miami is underwater?we put in the calmest old guy we could find.
I'm actually surprised by how radical Biden is being. Everyone thought he was a centrist bridge-builder, but now that he's in charge he seems to have unleashed his inner Bernie Sanders. I do think that some of this is due to age... likely the presidency will be his last job, he doesn't need to appease big business so he can move into some lucrative corporate consultancy and directorship roles afterwards... he's free to pursue what he wants, relatively unencumbered. Maybe we should insist that all future POTUS candidates are above retirement age 
Many people are spending their days in bad conditions due to climate change in Bangladesh. Agriculture is being affected which is reducing food production it's raining the arid regions of the world are experiencing more rainfall and flooding than before and the wet areas are getting drier than before such changes are called climate change as temperatures rise, polar ice caps or glaciers in the himalayas or the alps are melting large chunks of ice floating in the ocean the sea level is rising coastal low lying areas of different countries of the world including bangladesh are gradually sinking under saltwater. As a result a lot of biodiversities are being lost and people are losing their homes farmland and security.
^^^ But maybe it isn't climate change in Bangladesh. Maybe a lot of people have a Covid fever.
our puny attempts at climate control.
Agree with you on 'puny attempts'. Most nations are doing very little. Vague commitments, minor emissions cuts, nothing serious, nothing like what is needed to actually combat climate change. Empty words, mostly just greenwashing, from companies as well as governments.
Let's see if Biden is going to be as radical as he is saying. Where the US leads, others follow. He has a big chance to make a difference.
When you look at what really is causing climate change, you will find that it is the 11-year cycle of sunspots.
This probably depends on whether you're looking at a) utterly conclusive data and an overwhelming consensus amongst experts, who are impartial because they have nothing to gain from climate change, or b) some random fossil fuel lobbyist who likes his $$$.
Personally I tend to consider option 'a' as more relevant, so I'm somewhat skeptical of the sunspots
Right! Search https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=sunspots+control+global+warming&ia=web.
Nobody knows the whole answer one way or the another. But sunspots and weather data have been kept for over 100 years... maybe well over.
If we work to reduce global warming, all it takes is one good volcanic eruption to change everything that we have done for decades. While this isn't sunspot activity, sunspots are more gradual in what they do. So analyzing the data is harder.
The thing we know is that volcano activity shows us that nature easily overcomes our puny attempts at climate control. Sunspots are nature.
When you look at what really is causing climate change, you will find that it is the 11-year cycle of sunspots.
This probably depends on whether you're looking at a) utterly conclusive data and an overwhelming consensus amongst experts, who are impartial because they have nothing to gain from climate change, or b) some random fossil fuel lobbyist who likes his $$$.
Personally I tend to consider option 'a' as more relevant, so I'm somewhat skeptical of the sunspots
their body heat is adding to the natural heat of the whole area, and producing climate change for them.
That seems a preposterously unlikely explanation. Are you sure it doesn't have more to do with the fact that the entire country is basically a river delta? Two thirds of Bangladesh is less than five metres above sea level.
The high population density will certainly contribute to the effects of climate change, but is not the driver.
When you look at what really is causing climate change, you will find that it is the 11-year cycle of sunspots.
We know from history that global cooling followed major volcano eruptions. All that is needed to get rid of Global Warming, is to nuke a couple of volcanoes into erupting. Easy as pie. The radiation from the nuke would be as nothing when compared to the spewing magma, etc.
Climate change is BS. If there is local overheating somewhere, the locals know how to migrate like their ancestors did. When major world governments decide it's so bad that it is hurting somebody... nuke the volcanoes. But stop putting fear into everyone for nothing.
Of course, world leaders will not come to the homes of poor people in Bangladesh. If you want to help these really poor people, you have to go to humanitarian organizations such as the Red Cross and Red Crescent and "Humanity First". These organizations have already provided a lot of aid to many of the poor Around the world regardless of color, religion or race.
World leaders will not attend there unless they have a political interest in those countries. If this country was rich in oil and underground wealth, or had a distinct geographical location, world leaders would certainly have rushed to intervene there.
World leaders will not attend there unless they have a political interest in those countries. If this country was rich in oil and underground wealth, or had a distinct geographical location, world leaders would certainly have rushed to intervene there.
It is always easy to blame on others. When Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the population was 65 million. Now the population stands at 165 million and is increasing at a rate of 2% per year. Forests are being cut down at an alarming rate. Indigenous tribals of Chittagong Hill Tracts are being exterminated, and their land being invaded by Bangladeshis. Many of the tribals now live as refugees in Myanmar and India. And after doing all this, Bangladesh blames the Western countries for its suffering.
cnut is correct. living on flood level land is a problem that will become apparent sooner or later
yes it can provide good fertile land a couple seasons after a flood. and the hope is floods only occure once every 20-100 years so people end up settling on the land.
but also there are many other factors at play.
1. land erosion
yep its not so much "sea rise" but land fall.
depleting underground aquifers leaves a huge hole underground that also causes land subsidence
2. damming up rivers.
yep by conserving water into dammed reservoirs and man made rivers and diverting natural flow.. instead of letting it flow naturally down irrigation streams. means that it has less land to spread and drain into(fill aquifers) or evaporate from(cause regular rainspells). meaning less random spotty rain and instead mass rain in certain times.(drought then monsoon).. whilst depleting underground aquifers before people even get to deplete it further by pumping out whats left
the lack of water then surge of water is caused by messing with the river/stream system
3. upstream downstream
if you reduce the water flow upstream. it affects those downstream
in many countries including bangladesh. they think if they can plug up a river with a dam. or divert its path into man made channels. that can then allow people to live on flood land.
people living on the flood land. think that by living there the land must have always been safe from floods because no housing developer would dare make houses on risky land..
well no. people end up living on flood land and then get surprised when they get flooded.
climate change in bangladesh is not carbon problem.. but water diversion problem and then selling off the floodland for cheap housing.
no 'carbon offset' will solve there climate problem.. but sorting out their river and land use issues will
yes it can provide good fertile land a couple seasons after a flood. and the hope is floods only occure once every 20-100 years so people end up settling on the land.
but also there are many other factors at play.
1. land erosion
yep its not so much "sea rise" but land fall.
depleting underground aquifers leaves a huge hole underground that also causes land subsidence
2. damming up rivers.
yep by conserving water into dammed reservoirs and man made rivers and diverting natural flow.. instead of letting it flow naturally down irrigation streams. means that it has less land to spread and drain into(fill aquifers) or evaporate from(cause regular rainspells). meaning less random spotty rain and instead mass rain in certain times.(drought then monsoon).. whilst depleting underground aquifers before people even get to deplete it further by pumping out whats left
the lack of water then surge of water is caused by messing with the river/stream system
3. upstream downstream
if you reduce the water flow upstream. it affects those downstream
in many countries including bangladesh. they think if they can plug up a river with a dam. or divert its path into man made channels. that can then allow people to live on flood land.
people living on the flood land. think that by living there the land must have always been safe from floods because no housing developer would dare make houses on risky land..
well no. people end up living on flood land and then get surprised when they get flooded.
climate change in bangladesh is not carbon problem.. but water diversion problem and then selling off the floodland for cheap housing.
no 'carbon offset' will solve there climate problem.. but sorting out their river and land use issues will
their body heat is adding to the natural heat of the whole area, and producing climate change for them.
That seems a preposterously unlikely explanation. Are you sure it doesn't have more to do with the fact that the entire country is basically a river delta? Two thirds of Bangladesh is less than five metres above sea level.
The high population density will certainly contribute to the effects of climate change, but is not the driver.
Bangladesh is a nice place, except in one way. The people are so densely packed, that their body heat is adding to the natural heat of the whole area, and producing climate change for them. They need to move. Ideas are:
- become Russian citizens, and start their 2.5 acre homestead in Siberia, which is wide open;
- move onto boats or seasteads out on the ocean, where there is a lot of space and room for heat dissipation.
There are a lot of other ideas, but these two should help a person - or the Bangladesh government - to think of other ways.
- become Russian citizens, and start their 2.5 acre homestead in Siberia, which is wide open;
- move onto boats or seasteads out on the ocean, where there is a lot of space and room for heat dissipation.
There are a lot of other ideas, but these two should help a person - or the Bangladesh government - to think of other ways.
The people of banaladesh are suffering from climate change, millions of homes are lost, famers are complaining how the climate change is affecting their farming, livestock,no food to eat, the people of banaladesh are calling for help from world leaders to come to their rescue.
i hope everything will end well, stay strong.
Many of the anticipated adverse effects of climate change such as sea level rise higher temperatures, enhance monsoon precipitation and an increase in cyclone intensity will aggravate the existing stress that already impede development in Bangladesh, particularly by reducing water and food security and damaging.
The people of banaladesh are suffering from climate change, millions of homes are lost, famers are complaining how the climate change is affecting their farming, livestock,no food to eat, the people of banaladesh are calling for help from world leaders to come to their rescue.
Jump to: