Stopper wrote:But my knee-jerk reaction is that most of the people who will be most affected by any climate change would be in Africa and Asia, that is, the poorest nations on Earth. The richest nations would have less severe effects, and cope better (Katrina notwithstanding). So effectively, if all the predictions became true and are human-induced, the poorest nations would have to deal with the effects of the pollution of the richest nations - such as the more arid conditions you mention. I certainly can't see the EU or the USA handing much out in the way of aid for the damage they have caused. The third world can barely prize open their fists as it is.
Certainly some effects of global warming, such as high temperatures and increased aridity will effect equatorial (which is predominantly third world) climates more than the temperate regions. However, sea level rise is global and will affect everybody and is perhaps the most pressing concern. A 1m rise in sea-level will see much of London underwater, and as a result there is already a project in place (Thames 2100) which deals specifically with the flood management for the Thames region through to 2100. Your right though, there is no handouts being made to help third world countries prepare in the same way...
I saw an interesting supposition a while back, not something I necessarily advocate, but plausible none the less. Flood compensation on a global scale really, take an area like Siberia for example, very small population to a massive land mass which is mostly at or below sea-level and break the coastal barrier holding the sea back and flood it in its entirety. The article I saw suggested that flooding Siberia could reduce global sea-level by 1-2m. As I said I'm not advocating it but it is this sort of measure that I can see being seriously suggested when the acceptance comes that its too late to, or out of our ability to, stop global warming instead.
