/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

>>104516
probably real in some way, but odds are it's not human-caused. I'd offer more detail, but I'm a dumbfag when it comes to this stuff.

>>104516
IF man man climate change WAS a problem it would need to be addressed, but not in the form of a carbon tax.

>>104516
We must build more smoke stacks and invest in Greenlandish real estate.

>>104516
The climate is always changing, but there is no concrete evidence that humans are a driving force behind climate change or that the changes will be catastrophic or even minor problems.

The "97% of scientists agree" claim is textbook fake news.

"Climate Scientists" have been repeatedly caught fudging numbers from unreliable surface stations. They're also quick to turn a blind eye to satellite measurements because the story told by satellites does not mesh with the fear-mongering narrative that they're trying to push.

The current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are extremely low relative to other periods in the Earth's history. For some plant species we are not far above the starvation level. In recent years, as CO2 have risen, satellite imagery has shown that the planet has greened as vegetation flourishes in lockstep with the increased concentrations of CO2.

The prospect of a warmer planet would not be catastrophic. A warmer climate would lead to longer growing seasons which leads to an abundance of food for all life on Earth.

TL;DR, there are people out there who are trying to convince you that the sky is falling so that they can sell you some carbon shekels.

>>104516
>we live in a dynamic, ever changing planet
>if the temperature rises by 0.04 picodegrees we will all drown
Yeah, no. Besides, if anyone actually cares about CO2 emissions, they should consider nuking India and China and call it mission accomplished. Or cover volcanos.
The problem with the (((studies))) people usually follow is that they take data from a short period of time.

All I know is that I've been listening to climate change hysteria for as long as I've been alive, and so far all of the doomsday prophecies I've heard have turned out to be a giant double nothingburger with extra cheese. I don't understand the science well enough to comment much on available data, but I do have a few general points that I think deserve consideration:

Scientists have completely lost their objectivity where this matter is concerned.
The theory of man-made climate change has become more of a religious dogma than a scientific theory. Scientists are now basically saying that because the 'consensus' among them is that it is real, it is in fact real, and any evidence to the contrary should be summarily rejected. That's not how science works. A scientist's opinion has traditionally held weight because a scientist is an objective researcher who deals with empirical evidence and proven facts. Scientific opinions are supposed to be free from the personal prejudices and financial interests that bias the opinions of politicians and businessmen. Considering that this "consensus" of climate scientists has been repeatedly caught deliberately fudging data and suppressing studies that don't fit the climate change agenda, I think it's safe to say that scientific consensus is no longer the gold standard it used to be.

Climate change theory is based on computer models that have so far been very consistently wrong.
My (albeit sparse) understanding of this issue is that all of the stuff we've all been listening to since the 1990s about polar ice caps melting and the oceans boiling and the atmosphere filling up with methane and so forth is based on computer simulation models that predicted these occurrences. The models assumed a type of snowball effect where the buildup of carbon or greenhouse gases or whatever in the atmosphere would trap heat, which would produce more gases, which would trap more heat, etc, which would cause very catastrophic effects in a very short period of time. Hence, you get """experts""" like Al Gore predicting things like New York being underwater by 2015, that have obviously turned out to be way off base. While the simulations are based on real enough natural processes, so far the snowball effect that the doomsday theories hinged upon has consistently shown itself to be bullshit. If climate is in fact changing and human activity is in fact responsible, it's happening at a slow enough rate that at the very least it calls into question just how serious a problem it really is, if it's even a problem at all.

Solutions proposed by liberals are costly and ineffective even by their own standards.
So far, the only "solutions" proposed to this problem have involved massive expansions of the regulatory bureaucracy that would damage the economy far more than it would help the planet, even by the admission of some of the most devout believers in the religion of climate change. The more you look into some of these policy proposals the more it starts to feel like 'climate change' is just a boogeyman being used as an excuse to expand government control over people's lives, no different than the Patriot Act or any of the Bush-era stuff that lefties hyperventilate about.

Also, worst case scenario:
Climate change is real and as catastrophic as we've been warned; New York is engulfed by a tidal wave, California sinks to the bottom of the ocean, the most liberal populations in the country drown like the Atlanteans of old, the rest of the country becomes a tropical paradise, and all I have to do to make it happen is keep running my air conditioner and driving my car.

If taken account seriously, then the solution of viable alternate energy needs to be addressed. End the restrictions on the testing and development of nuclear power and thorium based nuclear reactors. Any other green technologies are also welcomed pragmatically and as well as the switch to natural gas reserves. Deforestation is also a key component of climate change if the reserves of CO2 is a detriment to the Earth's state because of inadequate amount of plants to filter that amount.
The scientifically climate debate however must be taken in account of. Like somethings, politicisation can hinder a science. There are three camps in the aforementioned discussion; the global warming camp, the climate change camp, and the non anthropogenic one which sometimes claims global cooling. The issue of the effects of excessive CO2 on plants, whether or not climate has seen a consistent "hockey stick" data trend, the affect of sunspots, and various other topics. Presently, I feel as though that all climate change proposals fail to actually combat the problem. It may be that the solution may be drastic. It can be just shit.
I'm still a strong advocate of green technology either way. I'd like to end the global oil hegemony.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oK6Rs6yFsM&t=714s

There's also a number of datasets that are quite different.

Mars, Neptune, Jupiter, Pluto and Triton have all been experiencing global warming. The cause of this is obviously not man-made.

I think it is real and some of it is our fault, but I think the liberals have the dumbest solutions to these problems. A carbon tax without environmental tarrifs will just move the polluting factories somewhere else and outlawing viable alternatives to fossil fuels like nuclear power will not make us less dependant on petroleum.

the climate is changing, as it always has, but due to solar and volcanic activity among other factors. Humans have nothing to do with it and fighting it is a waste of money

>>104581
To say that humans have nothing to do with it is disingenuous and gives crazy doomsayers ammunition against non-alarmists.

In some cases, human influence can be traced to localized climate changes. Most notably in some countries that practice mass deforestation, the act of deforesting the land fucks with local precipitation cycles.

On a global scale it is unclear how much of an influence humanity has on the climate. We do have SOME influence merely because we are part of the system of the Earth's climate. That's what most scientists mean when they say that human activity influences climate change. Your average scientists are just being sticklers on details like that. The only way to say that humans have nothing to do with the climate is to remove humanity entirely from the Earth. It's the disingenuous media and a very small minority of scientists that try to twist the statement that humans have some ambiguous measure of influence on the climate into a story that humans are the predominate driving force behind climate change.

In my own opinion, from what data that I've seen, I am inclined to agree that humanity plays a minor role in climate change on a global scale and that I believe that the primary drivers are solar output and ocean currents.

My philosophy is that if the human race and the planet are too weak to withstand some tougher weather and pollution, was it worth trying to save it all through laws and efforts to reduce our impact?

No regulation will stop mega corporations from hiding what they do. That will just stop smaller businesses from competing due to many expensive processes to stay in the low pollution “sweet spot”. Plus extra government overreach is always desirable for everyone… in power. Again, we can’t really benefit from any legal attempt to fix something that may not even be a factor in environmental change. If you want to start a cleanup business/service project to clean up pollutions around the area you live in, good for you, but I’m not paying extra taxes to have higher ups say how bad us even breathing is to the environment.

And, if we get lucky, maybe the leftist weaklings would die out in this promised awful new climate, leaving humanity in a better situation than we thought.

>>104552
>>104552
Maybe global warming isn't quite accurate (hence 'climate change' terminology), but CO2 should still be limited. I personally support anything that can produce energy without waste. I would support nuclear, but we are not advanced enough as a society to responsibly manage nuclear facility maintenance; the only danger of nuclear, I am sad to say, is our own foolishness.

>>104516
Given that its 22 degrees centigrade outside during summer in south fucking australia i call bullshit

>>104617
I disagree somewhat. Nuclear economy is entirely feasible and the only modern fuckup was due to the Japanese PM literally blundering with the Fukishima evacuation. Nobody died from radiation, but I can tell you people died during the evacuation and from lack of power. The most regulatory codes on nuclear are bogus, and actually make the plants unsafe with things like preventing quick shutdown mechanisms in plants. So far it's been tried and true. It's sad to see the nuclear weapon hysteria taint a clean energy in general. It's very efficient already, and thorium reactors poise even greater potential. Which can be worrying to economies such as in Australia who is a leading coal exporter, but has as well the largest plutonium reserves.

>>104555
>End the restrictions on the testing and development of nuclear power and thorium based nuclear reactors.

This. The human factor is negligible, but taxing humans via their emotional reactions is good for the elite.

Warming expands civilization, so it isn't bad.
Cooling shrinks civilization… and the suns output is falling which is making the volcanoes wake up.

>>104617
I think nuclear energy is the best option we have. If my country decided to invest in it, we only would only need a handful of plants to supply energy to the entire country.
The energy it outputs it's also "clean", with the only emission being water vapor. This contrasts with the supposed "clean" energy which, although have no emissions, polute the planet their own way - mostly because of the lithium their batteries require, which require mining for them and that polutes the environment around the mine and makes water not safe for consumption.
I agree that nuclear energy does have its drawbacks, the largest one being the fact that we still don't have a good option for dealing with the nuclear waste problem (although progress is being make), and the difficulty in separating civil and military applications (the thorium reactor solution Canadiananon talks here >>104622 can be effective in this regard).
About safety, there's not much to go about. Modern plants have been shown as effective and safe facilities, with the one in Fukushima withstanding a tsunami and an earthquake stronger than it was designed for.
From an economic point of view, nuclear energy might not seem like a good idea, because of the high starting price, but on the long run it is clearly the best option, since they can work for a long time without needing refueling. The bulk of the economic investment is the infrastructure itself, so I'm having a hard time grasping why some countries are dismantling their plants after only a few years of service, when they can work well for decades.

>>104691
Actually, the nuclear waste problem is very small, the problem comes in the long run, for now, sticking that shit up as far under the earth as possible and shield it so it doesn't pollute is the solution they have, which might be a very bad idea in the future because terra forming but who knows.

Also nuclear plants should be privatized, leaving it to the government to take control is going to end up with another Chernobyl (that is, atleast in my country)

It's always interesting to note that we currently are in an ice age (since there are extensive ice sheets on both hemispheres), and that their disappearance has not historically meant the destruction of human/all life.

Still, I do adhere to many environmentalist practices and ideas. Global temperature in the next few hundred years are not my concern, I won't pretend to understand the predictions or effects. My concern is local temperature.

Listening to stories of my father and grandfather and going through books, it is clear to me that temperatures don't reach the same lows that they once did around here. My father and grandfather have been unable to pass down certain traditions to me because it never gets quite cold enough.

I consider central heating to be one of the main culprits, something no other treehugger ever seems to find problematic, and none of them even want to even think about going without it.

>>104524
Why would it need to be addressed, pray tell? Polar bears might be lost to the zoos, coastal regions need to build a dijk, and a few niggers and sandniggers might dehydrate. Anything else? I have my own reason, but I doubt the whole world will bend over for my local cause.

>>104553
>>104555
>>104615
Hear hear.

>>104617
There are thousands of nuclear facilities being managed responsibly for decades all around the globe. It's S A F E . Don't fall for this propaganda.

>>104707
> don't reach the same lows that they once did
At here is quite the opposite, last year we had -6 Celsius which is insane for this place, that was the coldest it ever got I'm here.
We also have summers of 40 Celsius sometimes, it's becoming the norm, usually summer won't go past 35.

>>104708
When the weather system has more energy in it because of captured heat it leads to more dramatic air movements, the consequences can be that cold air from the poles travels to places it never used to.

A Global temperature rise can have local cooling effects due to greater air movement.

>>104605
human activity is still inconsequential to the broader climate the romans and the people of medieval europe didn't cause their warm periods and we aren't causing the modern warm period.

>>104617
CO2 isn't a pollutant.

>>104714
It is not inconsequential. The acidification of the ocean and overfishing are huge problems.

>>104744
The acidification of the ocean might be because of a period of bigger volcanic activity I'm the past years.
Over fishing is a meme, the only thing that can kill all the fish is algae, basically if you make the ocean colder or warmer, add or remove salt, certain kind of algae will grow and mess everything up.

The world will adapt, no matter what we do, this ideology "men can destroy the world" is just arrogance, we speak as if we were not part of nature.
If we mess up, the world adapts and so our species.

MA made a new post about climate change:

…
Unfortunately, this is the beginning of the decline. It will get worse. We are looking at a progressive period of colder weather for the first 13 years following 2015. There should be some oscillation and if there are any warm winters compared to this one, this will be an extension of the decline at least into 2032 with the more likely target off into 2045-2047. By the time this is finished, you will be willing to taxes to get global warming. The sad part of this whole mess is that the Global Warming crowd, while they are rolling around in their bed of cash rejoicing how much they made on this scam, they have led many people to their death by distracting people from the real fury of nature.

Extreme cold has reached from New England to the Midwest and down to the Carolinas, with temperatures dropping below zero. It has been in the 40s here at night in the Tampa region and it snowed a little in Tallahassee. The fatalities associated with the harsh conditions will continue to rise from drivers sliding off an icy road to the rise in disease. This will be a very dangerous rise in economic declines as well as temperature plummet during the winters ahead. It is so cold, any kind of exposed skin can freeze in a couple of minutes.” It was so cold, the attendance for New York City’s Times Square on New Year’s Eve was sharply lower.
…
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/climate-change-as-if-it-was-supposed-to-change/

>>104765
Winter chan?

>>104744
so what, are we going to invade China and stop them? or is this just going to be used to justify more bullshit that funnels money into useless bureaucracies like the UN?

It's real, mostly caused by humans, well understood, supported by the available evidence and has potential for very negative effects in the long run.
And none of that matters because the possible solutions that could have an impact like nuclear energy or geoengineering are not politically workable, and the solutions that do have a chance of being implemented like building solar and wind farms, are ineffective.

>>104524
The idea behind a carbon tax is that it would be an economic incentive to reduce emissions, by putting a price on CO2 it would bring it into the realm of economics and encourage free market solutions. I'd be in favor of something along those lines if we could make it work worldwide, it's certainly better than capping emissions by law and setting up an emissions trading scheme that can and will be gamed.
And yes, obviously there is the allure of more tax revenue to feed a growing state that is going to want even more.

>>104707
>has not historically meant the destruction of human/all life
I don't worry about anything so dramatic as the end of life on Earth, but I would worry about things like expanding deserts, crop failures, tropical diseases expanding north and waves of "climate change refugees".

>My father and grandfather have been unable to pass down certain traditions to me because it never gets quite cold enough.
Like skating, or is that just a stereotype? Visit Sweden, we have some pretty decent nature and I went for a walk on a lake just yesterday.

>>104516
Weathermen can hardly predict wether it's going to rain tomorrow. How the fuck can they predict that the average will be higher everywhere in a certain amount of years.

>>104775
Winter- chan is for lewds

>>104858
It's not weather, it's physics and averages.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is Earth's insulation. Put on a thicker blanket made of CO2, get warmer. That's global warming in a nutshell, and we've known the physics behind the greenhouse effect since the late 1800s.
It's only when you try to predict local climate and its effects or complicated feedbacks like cloud formation that the infamous climate models come into play.

>>104917
>Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is Earth's insulation. Put on a thicker blanket made of CO2, get warmer.
Stop drinking the kool-aid.

CO2 is an extraordinarily weak greenhouse gas that only makes up approximately 0.04% of the earth's atmosphere.

Water vapor is a far more potent greenhouse gas that can be found within our atmosphere at concentrations as high as 4%.

>>104917
Picture #1 >>104581
The scale of our contribution is small.

Also we have an ice age coming at some point. Warmth is good. Picture #5 >>104638

>>104516
China is not going to stop even if you carbon tax every other country, so whatever.

>>104917
I actually see methane as a bigger threat than co2
While co2 increased ~100 ppm from 1750 to 2018(280 to 399ppm), methane went from about 0.772 ppm to 1.834 ppm.

Snow covers parts of the SAHARA DESERT for the third time in 40 years as freak storm sees 16 INCHES fall in one day

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5246347/Snow-Sahara-desert-time-40-years.html
http://archive.is/O9OFo - Archive version doesn't work correctly



>It snowed 16 inches in the Sahara Desert near the town Ain Sefra in Algeria after a storm hit on Sunday. This is the third time in 40 years that snow has fallen on the city.

>Residents also awoke to snow in 2016 and 2017. But this time, they got about 16 inches of the white stuff. While the actual town of Ain Sefra only saw a few inches of snow, the sand dunes in the desert, which is on the outskirts of the town, were covered.

https://eraoflight.com/2018/01/10/global-warming-in-the-sahara-desert-we-woke-up-to-see-snow/

>>104930
>>105030
Doesn't matter if it's only a small contribution, what matters is whether the system as a whole is in balance. Even if we're pushing just gently on the scale we're still pushing away from the equilibrium we've been in.
Water vapor for example may have a greater effect, but it also has a built-in negative feedback in cloud formation.

>Also we have an ice age coming at some point.
At some point, but that is still far off.

>>105057
Those dunes look tasty.

>>105153
There was no careful equilibrium to upset. It's always in flux and has changed many times in the past without the need for humanity to tip the scales.

>>105153
We as humans will always “tip the scale” as you say with pollution by making any form of it. However, does this mean we must stop producing it? Are you willing to give up technology and other systems we use daily to “restore environmental balance”? Even if we shut down and dismantle all technology and mechanisms that pollute in an effort to stop environmental change (which would devastate us worse at this point than natural disaster) they will still point to us producing children as an attack on the environment. Balance in this area is impossible to achieve because everything we do makes some kind of useless byproduct as according to the laws of thermodynamics: energy can’t be created or destroyed, just changed to different forms.

What do you suggest is done for maintaining this ideal balance? Government programs? Companies forced to make multi-million dollar investments to reduce waste, even the small local businesses? Both the current government and large corporations can’t be trusted to correctly do anything you propose to them anyway, and will turn the goal of environmental reform to controlling the populace and their actions.

Any potential danger we (supposedly) make to the earth is mild in comparison to what danger we will have on our hands if we give more power to the current system. Does that mean we should stop looking for better and cleaner means to get the same results such as fuel and energy? No, but we can’t give up what little freedoms we have left to the elite to make it happen.

>>105192
"Careful" implies that it's intentional, and it's clearly not. But we are still in something like a temporary sweet spot for large scale civilization and changing the chemistry of the planet might not be a great idea. Yes, climate used to be different, but so what? We didn't use to have a population of billions depending on a worldwide system of trade, and now we do.
If things get screwy now there's just more to go wrong and closing borders while the less developed parts of the planet crash and burn is clearly not on the table.

>>105195
>What do you suggest is done for maintaining this ideal balance?
We don't have a lot of workable options, possibly none. (>>104805) But if I were to prescribe policy I'd aim for electrifying transport, easing up on nuclear regulation and keep going for natural gas in the near term. Economically it'd likely have to be some combination of tax breaks on investment, research funding for nuclear/fusion and possibly a carbon tax (which would have to be set up so it wouldn't just flow into the general budget and disappear, instead it should go to something like a tax rebate for regular people).

Basically the ecomodernist prescription. Following what is currently the supposed pro-environment consensus would be useless and probably harmful, telling people to make sacrifices in their everyday lives is just a distraction.

>>105232
>carbon tax
Anon… taxation is theft. But besides that, the taxes would be avoided by the elite and left for small businesses and the general population to pick up. The government reducing regulations would be nice, but you still want the government involved in the process with incentives like tax breaks. You can not deny the agenda the left have when it comes to environmental regulations and control.

And yes, we must close borders so the trashy, lawless immigrants don’t pollute our countries more. If billions depend on making less pollution, then they can figure out how to fix it themselves without us using globalist agendas and UN decrees to control everyone. And by liberal logic, less people means less needed production means less pollution. So wouldn’t someone as concerned as you about the lack of balance we put on this planet be happy countries go under due to the climate? It would be a quick way to get back in that “sweet spot” would it?

I say we will deal with whatever comes and either overcome it or die. Humans are a bit tougher than you give them credit for. At the moment, there is no good way to negate pollution, so why bother enacting laws on it? Just keep researching better ways to do what we already do. One day, maybe we can find that magic power source that has no byproduct and we all can be eco-friendly for you.

>>105057
Did no one consider that maybe the poles are moving to a different location?

Regarding the: solar output falling -> crust shrinks -> volcanoes wake up, theory:

Dormant/Extinct Volcano Erupts for First Time in Recorded History

>Another dormant volcano has suddenly awakened erupting in a rather spectacular fashion, spewing lava for the first time in known history, It sent an ash cloud 2.1 kilometers into the sky. This ancient volcano on Kadovar Island, which is northeast of Papua New Guinea, has been dormant throughout human history until January 5th, 2018. It began to erupt at around noon, local time. The volcanic island is about 24 kilometers from the northern coast of mainland Papua New Guinea. Our model is also showing that there will be a rise in volcanic activity as we move into 2024. We previously warned: “If we see a series of volcanic eruptions in the VEI 6 category or greater within 2018, expect to see a very sharp turn down in temperature and Global Cooling will take on rapid change going into 2024.” It is truly fascinating how this correlates to the change in the energy output of the sun.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/nature/dormantextinct-volcano-erupts-for-first-time-in-recorded-history/

>>105262
Carbon tax as a last resort, it's not something I'm necessarily thrilled about but bringing emissions into the balance sheet means giving free market solutions something to work with. That's the incentive for "figure out how to fix it themselves without us using globalist agendas and UN decrees". And it'd have to be on things like electricity generation, not a sin tax on consumers.

>And yes, we must close borders so the trashy, lawless immigrants don’t pollute our countries more.
I just don't see that happening in the current political climate. At least not in Europe. Sweden here by the way, ignore flag.

>Humans are a bit tougher than you give them credit for.
I don't worry about humanity's continued existence, I worry about ruining (what's left of) a pretty good society by taking steps to "save the planet" that are ineffective, and about further increasing the pressure to take in refugees.

>At the moment, there is no good way to negate pollution, so why bother enacting laws on it?
France and Sweden both made drastic cuts in CO2 emissions by building out nuclear power (and hydro). More recently the US has been reducing emissions from power generation by switching to natural gas. It is technically feasible, just not something you can currently get away with politically for the most part.

For what it's worth, I'm fully on board with the argument that cheap energy from fossil fuels has been a great benefit to the world. I just want that cheap energy from slightly different sources where possible.

>>105429
The magnetic poles are constantly moving, but it would take a lot to affect the angle at which the Earth rotates.

>>104638
yes, cooling shrinks civilization, even for those who have a short memory, there was a very cool era in the 1950, where in Winter 1954 here in France many people died out of cold, homeless people died. even peasants and middle class in their homes ( i mean, back then all they had was a fireplace) died of the cold wave. -50C. it was a crisis.

even in the 1980's I recall the weather was colder, we had winters with -20's. now winters barely fall to -10 but temperatures are falling again. the last warm winter was in 2015, where we had only a few days with negative temps. this one is rather normal, and even our Great King of President Emmanuel "Jupiter" Macron Premier said it was the effect of the European Regulations. "See? It's effective, we have no more industry but we no longer pollute and global warming is reduced! thank me and Queen Merkel for saving the World!"

>>104581

It's foolish to believe human have a huge impact on weather, or even global warming, it's even dangerous to believe we can control it. There's a inane work of self-persuasion, a wrong belief that we can control nature, with science, with technology, laws, anything. A simple volcanic eruption creates more greenhouse gases than anything human could produce, even atmospheric thermonuclear tests looks like piss poor shit compared to natural activity that's been occurring, well, since 4 billion years.

Also yes, true scientists found a perfect correlation between the solar's throughput (changes in the fusion cycles) that creates a variation along the decades, centuries, etc. We cannot control this.

Roman empire expanded because the temperatures on the south were warm, while German and northern civilization had to remain idle, hidden in caverns.
Middle age had expansions and seen a lot of progress in many domains, til the renaissance with a period of warmth, and it all ended with a cold era, poverty with all kind of revolutions, famine and conflicts. Industrial revolution, everything in the civilization is dominated by the climate, and climate always change, it's undeniable.

We cannot cheat nature… but again our fate is not sealed. One of the greatest thing man invented since the fire was expansive foam and rock wool. installed in the walls, or used to seal the ceilings and crawlspaces of the homes, it allows the man to survive in homes by very low temperatures anywhere in the globe, it's really fantastic, for once we have a little chance of not dying like… oh well, you get the idea.

Just saw pic related on 4/pol/:

>Scandinavia/UK/Northern Russia/Greenland
>Compact high-rise cities would provide shelter for much of the world's population

Yeah, you just know that our politicians will be falling over themselves to invite everyone who wants to come. On the flip side, "compact high-rise cities" might mean that the countryside gets left alone at least. Maybe we'll even get those vineyards that Arrhenius was talking about in the 1800s.
Shame that the Netherlands (not my real country) most probably gets fucked in this scenario though.