How Long Will Australia Be Livable?(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
How Long Will Australia Be Livable?
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/only-way-confront-australias-wildfires/604546/
18 comments
yeah with a primitive life style, shorter lifespans and a very very low population density.
Also GDP of 0
Dont try and compare.. its like comparing a apple and a 4 bedroom apartment.
Also GDP of 0
Dont try and compare.. its like comparing a apple and a 4 bedroom apartment.
And will the next absurd question be how long will the Sahara be livable?
Is it though? I mean some people live there but it cannot support a population. With a long enough drought, Australia's desertification will continue and its ability to support large population will decrease as well.
It was once, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period
Agreed. After all the interior is basically empty, the average altitude 338 meters. Sure people will move a bit inland, not really a big deal.
Water supply is the issue. The Aborigines' distant ancestors had the world's most advanced seafaring technology 40,000 years ago, but the environment was so harsh and hostile they just barely clung on, and regressed technologically. At a minimum the Australians need to build solar-powered water desalination plants on a massive scale, and water works to collect flood waters.
Desal may be too little too late. Here in Sydney the desal plant is operating at full capacity and supplying 15% (250Ml/day) of needs. There is talk of expanding it to 30%, but how many years off will it be when the surface water supply is already down to 40% storage capacity? Oh and of course the desal plant doesn’t actually serve the entire city, mush less the metro.
http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SW/water-the-environment/how-w...
http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SW/water-the-environment/how-w...
If "we" can live on Mars, we can live in Australia despite inhospitable temperatures and an unbreathable atmosphere.
Conversely, if we can't live in Australia, with at least some naturally occurring water, then we need to give up on the pipedreams of fleeing to a new unspoiled planet and start to seriously address what's actually happening here.
> like the ANZACs at Gallipoli, we have to rethink our strategy
Alternatively, like most military disasters, the arrogant leaders that were thousands of miles from the frontline will learn nothing and continue to make decisions that get people killed. While using nationalism to bolster their support.
Conversely, if we can't live in Australia, with at least some naturally occurring water, then we need to give up on the pipedreams of fleeing to a new unspoiled planet and start to seriously address what's actually happening here.
> like the ANZACs at Gallipoli, we have to rethink our strategy
Alternatively, like most military disasters, the arrogant leaders that were thousands of miles from the frontline will learn nothing and continue to make decisions that get people killed. While using nationalism to bolster their support.
The costs of housing 100 people on mars, and the costs of housing 28 million in a similar fashion here on earth, are slightly higher.
Good heavens. Next year, these same clueless wonders will be writing about the 'miraculous rebirth' of forests and wildlife. Pro tip: forests evolved to burn regularly. Nature!
I suspect the articles point is more the scope, frequency, and magnitude of these changes. The fires are just one symptom. The city of Sydney being down to 40% of its water supply, and plausibly down to 20% this year. The Murray-darling basin is, bluntly, fucked.
And regards to your “pithy” comment I do believe you’re off base. FWICT ecologists, biologists, and foresters are at a bit of a loss. We’re losing territory that simply doesnt burn in the normal cycle. To quote myself, The fires have been much larger and hotter than typical. The vegetation that does regrow probably wont be the same as we lost, ie pyrophillic scrubland replacing forrest. The fires are also destructive enough to destroy pyrophytic plants that would resist previous bushfires. Both of these are going to disrupt the regrowth of the ecosystem in unexpected/abnormal ways. Concern is that it leads to a long term cycle of more, hotter, larger fires and permanent habitat loss.
And regards to your “pithy” comment I do believe you’re off base. FWICT ecologists, biologists, and foresters are at a bit of a loss. We’re losing territory that simply doesnt burn in the normal cycle. To quote myself, The fires have been much larger and hotter than typical. The vegetation that does regrow probably wont be the same as we lost, ie pyrophillic scrubland replacing forrest. The fires are also destructive enough to destroy pyrophytic plants that would resist previous bushfires. Both of these are going to disrupt the regrowth of the ecosystem in unexpected/abnormal ways. Concern is that it leads to a long term cycle of more, hotter, larger fires and permanent habitat loss.
The scale and intensity of the fires in Australia is unprecedented in the history of its settlement. There’s no record of this level of species or habitat destruction, nor do we have good models for what impact climate change will have on fire occurrence or intensity in the future. Your model of “nature” isn’t rooted in a real appraisal of this changing calculus, it’s just hand-waving masquerading as wisdom.
These fires are significantly worse than they should be, not to mention our average summer heat rising & the fire season lengthening every year.
We are Australia, we have fires every year. We understand that forests burn naturally, and we understand what that looks like. It's taught to every second grader during fire season.
This isn't that.
We are Australia, we have fires every year. We understand that forests burn naturally, and we understand what that looks like. It's taught to every second grader during fire season.
This isn't that.
These fires are on a scale that is unprecedented. But they are also not an isolated event, and they will continue from now on, and get worse.
Forests have not evolved to deal with that.
Forests have not evolved to deal with that.
The forest may regrow, although on a scale of decades rather than next year. Not all the animal species will come back.
What will definitely not grow back is the 2,000 homes destroyed.
What will definitely not grow back is the 2,000 homes destroyed.
It's hard for me to put this in a way that doesn't make me sound like a climate change denier, but the climate related events in Australia, not just the fires, are a combination of poor policy and climate change. The drought conditions and unprecedented heat notwithstanding, we have also pretty poorly managed the forests and water stocks, at times for the benefit of corporations. This year could have gone a lot better than it did is all I'm getting at.
To address the article: The will for any community to remain in place will be stronger than we anticipate I think, as this is a long term issue it's hard to imagine people thinking far enough ahead to start dismantling communities now. The impetus needed to overcome the inertia of moving a community is enormous, and as harsh as this year has been it is still the same flavour of challenges we currently deal with so it's easy to feel complacent. Once these fires go out, watch as Australia marches through the year like nothing happened and headlong into next summer. We might be lucky and some smart cookies will pass some more funding to the fire services so we can protect our communities. Repeat until unrepeatable.
In the short term I think we'll see changing management of forests and communities surrounded by them. We need to think hard about communities and homes living at the interface between bush and mankind. We need to get better at separating community from bushland, so we can let these fires burn and keep the fuel in the forests at non-catastrophic levels and the vegetation and fauna healthy.
To address the article: The will for any community to remain in place will be stronger than we anticipate I think, as this is a long term issue it's hard to imagine people thinking far enough ahead to start dismantling communities now. The impetus needed to overcome the inertia of moving a community is enormous, and as harsh as this year has been it is still the same flavour of challenges we currently deal with so it's easy to feel complacent. Once these fires go out, watch as Australia marches through the year like nothing happened and headlong into next summer. We might be lucky and some smart cookies will pass some more funding to the fire services so we can protect our communities. Repeat until unrepeatable.
In the short term I think we'll see changing management of forests and communities surrounded by them. We need to think hard about communities and homes living at the interface between bush and mankind. We need to get better at separating community from bushland, so we can let these fires burn and keep the fuel in the forests at non-catastrophic levels and the vegetation and fauna healthy.
The VOC declared it unlivable right after its discovery and the Dutch never tried to settle there. Much later the English decided that they would love to settle there, suppose you can settle anywhere if you want to settle everywhere.
The Aborigines have lived here for 60-odd thousand years without too much trouble by the look of it. While European settlement is hitting hard limits after a mere 250 years.