Vote Democrat/Green and give to charities that work in 3rd world countries, as they will be hardest hit.

how can a lover of nature and humanity best assist the world through the coming disruption? — Moliere

Things that come to mind:

1. Focus on local issues: one’s workplace and town/city. Run for something, petition, vote, etc. Public utilities are a good place to start. Town councils. City councils. Boards of directors. Etc.

2. Electrify everything. Although much electricity generation comes from natural gas and there’s problems with transmission lines, electrification should continue as much as possible. It’s much easier to clean up the electric grid than it is to wait until it’s completely clean before going electric. Heat pumps are a great example — better to replace those old furnaces now.

3. Divest from anything that supports fossil fuels. Take your money out of banks and put them in credit unions. Invest in green companies and research. Make sure your retirement funds aren’t heavily skewed towards fossil fuel companies.

4. Buy local as much as possible. Big Ag is a major contributor to emissions. Eat less meat, especially red meat.

5. Take public transportation as much as possible.

Many more…

The most general discription I heard on the consequences of climate change is that it will be a multiplier on risks for human societies.

Climate change is basically weather becoming more volatile (larger extremes) and generally hotter.

That will mean less arable land and generally more extreme living conditions which will reduce habitable zones on earth.

That will cause displacement of people and a large amount of migrationpressure out of the central latitudes where most of the earths population lives now.

Immigration-pressure, water shortages and food shortages from more frequent crop failures, will cause more unrest within countries and more conflict between countries.

Longer term you have the pole-ice melting (quasi-)permanently, which means sea levels will rise. And that means a lot of the coastal cities will have to relocate.

Finally it also has a mulitplying effect on further breakdown of ecological systems and biodiversity-loss.

That will mean less arable land and generally more extreme living conditions which will reduce habitable zones on earth. — ChatteringMonkey

The atmosphere will be more humid than it is now. Some areas will experience increased rainfall and probably flooding. Some areas will become dryer because of changes in wind patterns. Right now water rises into the air at the equator. It follows a current toward the poles. When it reaches a band of low pressure zones, the water dumps.

Increased warming makes the low pressure zones go north, so water presently being dumped in the Great Plains will be dumped in Canada. I'm guessing someone told Trump this, which would explain why he wants Canada.

Prosperous individuals can reduce consumption across the board. Live in less space; heat less; cool less; drive less; fly less; eat less (meat from big animals); buy less clothing; buy less furnishings; buy less appliances. Walk more; bike more (using your own power); use public transit more; neglect your lawn more; garden more; read more; socialize more; pray more (it might help).

A lot of people will be on the move to escape the severe downsides of global heating. Climate refugees will find a cold welcome in the territories into which they move. Good luck on making peaceful, equitable adjustments.

The globe will experience a population loss across many species, including our own. Fresh water is already one of the choke points. Paradoxically, there will be far too little clean drinkable water in some places, and far too much fresh water in other places. Salt water is already encroaching on coastal cities.

what are the likely consequences for the human world and the wider environment, — Moliere

We are already seeing many of the effects, which will intensify and accelerate due to feedback loops. Wildfires wipe out vast swathes of forest, which not only diminishes the carbon capturing capability of vegetation, but contributes to airborne particulates and gases. The oceans and great lakes are already growing warmer; in the salt water, this means changed migration patterns of sea-life; in fresh water, lower levels and increased algae bloom. The melting of polar ice will eradicate some species and the melting of permafrost is creating sinkholes that emit even more methane. And ancient bacteria and viruses for which we are unprepared. The glaciers are disappearing, which means so do the rivers they feed. Water shortages follow.

The summers, even in northern latitudes, are increasingly hot, such that people in cities are dying of heatstroke if they can't get to a shelter. Those who have AC are a huge drain on the power supply, which can cause local hydro outages, alongside those caused by turbulent storms in every season. We're already seeing more frequent and deadly tornadoes, blizzards, ice storms, hurricanes and rainstorms. Changing wind patterns make forecasting difficult, drive sudden rises and plunges in temperature and shift the movement of clouds, which results in unprecedented droughts and floods. All of the foregoing affect crops around the world, with consequent shortages in staple foods (don't expect cheap coffee or cocoa anymore), killing livestock and hindering remedial efforts. Destroyed infrastructure cost vast amounts of resources to replace.

TBC with mitigation ideas.

Won't Canada and Russia gain a lot of arable land? — Agree-to-Disagree

Canada will not gain a lot of arable land, even if its territory warms up. What are the obstacles?

a) The Canadian Shield, for one. The Shield is the craton or hard rock core of North America and most of it is either exposed or very close to the surface.



b) the Canadian Rockies. Wheat doesn't grow well on mountain sides. Much of western Canada is mountainous.

A lot of Canada is flat, wet, and forested. It won't become good farmland.

The parts of Canada that can be cultivated are being cultivated.

Longer term you have the pole-ice melting (quasi-)permanently, which means sea levels will rise. And that means a lot of the coastal cities will have to relocate. — ChatteringMonkey

How long is "longer term".

How long will it take for sea levels to rise enough to cause coastal cities to relocate?

A few meters this century, and then the rest over centuries, I'm sure there are projections for this.

There is very little you can do about the situation through the political process in today's *ahem* climate.
While a few states have sound policies, most are poorly prepared and who knows what will happen to funding in the near future. Europe has done much better and china seems to be working on the problem. You can certainly find out what projects are underway or in effect where you live.
Think, also on the community and personal level.

Try to ensure your energy production, with solar panels, wind generators, geothermal, hydro or wave action equipment. Some Native communities have a head start on this. Make sure all buildings are fitted or retrofitted with the best possible insulation. Earth sheltered is best, BTW. Every neighbourhood should have a space large enough and robust enough for an emergency shelter, with food and water supplies laid in for the entire community far several days, at least a backup generator and communications device of some kind. Hold drills.
Get to know your neighbours and find out what skills are available: co-peration saves lives. Organize teams to look after the most vulnerable in case of flood, fire, extreme wind and heat. Set up local hydroponic and community gardens for fresh produce. (There will be more frequent interruptions to the supply chain, as well as rising prices.) Preserve as much fruit and vegetable as possible for lean times and establish a central food bank for staples. Train community members in essential health services and acquire sufficient medical supplies for an extended period.

Personal considerations to follow.

I have posted before about how cold kills many more people than heat. — Agree-to-Disagree

Oh, that's changing all the time. But there will be more deaths from cold, heat, water, wind, ice and snow.

There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show. — Agree-to-Disagree

Canada is not the British Isles. and 2024 is not 1988.

If you want to minimise the number of people that die from temperature related deaths then you should welcome a little warming. — Agree-to-Disagree

That's still not how it works.

There could be 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050.

I wish you were right. You're not.

Heat and health

Risk of heat-related deaths has ‘increased rapidly’ over past 20 years

On average, the researchers attributed just over one-third of heat-related deaths across all countries to climate change. Note that this is not a third of all temperature-related deaths, just the ones related to warm temperatures in the warm season. This differed across countries, as the chart shows. As you can see in the chart, climate change deaths as a share of all warm season deaths was lower in more temperate climates across Europe and North America and higher – sometimes more than 50% – in Western Asia, Southeast Asia, and South America. — What share of heat deaths has already been attributed to climate change?

And so on. Plenty of data, for those who take a look.

And so on. Plenty of data, for those who take a look. — Banno

When you’re a climate denier, data and evidence don’t matter. Better to go with one’s feelings.

It's a bit wet up north. An area in Queensland, the size of France and Germany together, is presently flooded.

The second "once-in-a-century" flood in six years.

Sea surface temperatures are higher than ever, leading to a very later monsoon season and hence to the inundation. Pretty direct causal link, as these things go.

And there is more to come.

I guess they will have to stop raising cattle and move into rice production.


https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/05/bigger-than-texas-the-true-size-of-australias-devastating-floods#img-1

The dinosaurs started dominating the planet during two million years of flooding. Most scientists think the flooding was a result of global warming set off by volcano emissions of CO2. There's a good PBS documentary about it.

Cool.

Now that change in climate was fast - a half-million years or so.

The present change in climate is more like instant.

The present change in climate is more like instant. — Banno

True. It will heat up in a big spike that will last a few thousand years, and a long tail will drag on for about 100,000 years. At that point the CO2 will be back in the oceans. In geological time that's nothing.

Do you have a conclusion? What you are saying makes no difference to the hundreds of thousands of head of cattle that are presently drowning in Queensland.

There have been more than 50,000 heat-related deaths and more than 200,000 related to cold in England and Wales since 1988, new official figures show. — Agree-to-Disagree

200,000 people were suffering from hot weather. Then they took shelter in aggressively air-conditioned offices. All dead within hours.

Things you can do for yourself and family:
Make sure you have enough necessities - clothing, bedding, hygiene products, non-perishable staple foods, including dry pet food if applicable (there won't be much for dogs and cats to hunt, after) batteries (better yet, get a radio, flashlight and tools that don't require batteries).
Change your diet. Become accustomed to canned meat or no meat. (The latter is also a service to the planet)*
Plant a garden and indoor hydroponics if you have any space in which to do it; if not, join a communal garden.
Insulate your home to the nighest standard possible.
Install whatever power generation device you can afford and accommodate.
Do not have a baby. Teach older children basic survival skills.
Get whatever dental and preventive medical work you can afford.
Lay in the largest possible supply of needed medications (may be difficult under regulations) and OTC supplements.
Build a library (non electronic) of how-to books.
Always have a go-bag ready for each member of the family.

* for the planet: stop using superfluous appliances. Get [url=http://hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9220103&hvtargid=pla-306572288073&gad_source=1&th=1]a meter[/url] to find out how much power appliances are drawing when not in use (a lot!) and get power bars with off-switches to turn them off. Replace greedy appliances with more energy-efficient ones when you get a chance. Use all of them less.
Change your diet. Less meat, more locally sourced food.
Stop buying heavily plasticed frivolities and overpackaged foods.
Support local business rather than multinationals.
Reuse, recycle and compost.
Learn to repair and preserve things instead of throwing away and replacing them.
Stop feeding and mowing your lawn: plant edible herbs instead.
Drive less; get bicycles for your family; walk. Fly never if it's at all avoidable, and for heaven's sake don't go on ocean cruises.

I'm sure you can think of more.

The thing is: this is not a what-if threat, but a how-soon one. Climate change is very real and happening all around us, totally oblivious of and indifferent to denials.

I have deleted comments regarding the effects of cold on human beings as off-topic.

Canada is not the British Isles. and 2024 is not 1988. — Vera Mont

This comment might get deleted by Moliere.

You are correct, Canada is not the British Isles. Canada is much colder than the British Isles.

You said 2024 is not 1988, but the numbers are since 1988. not for 1988.

One of the consequences of Climate Change is that there will be less deaths due to cold. — Agree-to-Disagree

Balderdash! There will be more deaths due to cold, heat, wind, water, snow, ice, droughts, hurricanes, famines and wars.

Or are we only allowed to talk about the negative consequences of Climate Change? — Agree-to-Disagree

You are allowed to talk about anything you can back up with evidence. AFAIK, there no positive consequences. The one(s) you referred to so far are bogus.

As the temperature increases with climate change the forested subarctic region which surrounds the tundral will shift north into the Arctic tundra. The grasslands and temperate forests which are south of the forested subarctic region will expand into where the forested subarctic region is now. It is the new grassland areas which can be farmed. — Agree-to-Disagree

That'sstill not how it works. Learn the science.

Disagree;980870"]What are your science credentials?[/quote]
It's not a question of credentials, but one of finding factual information and reliable predictions.
It's not that hard. Give it a try.

https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/news/2025/01/environment-and-climate-change-canadas-climate-forecasting-system-highlights-concerning-global-warming-trends.html
https://indigenousclimatehub.ca/effect-of-climate-change-on-landscapes/
https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ecs2.4558
https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/understanding-the-impact-of-climate-change-on-sub-arctic-groundwater/
https://www.caryinstitute.org/news-insights/media-coverage/ancient-subarctic-forests-risk-climate-change-and-war
FFS, learn how it works!

Fly never if it's at all avoidable, and for heaven's sake don't go on ocean cruises. — Vera Mont

:up:

Cruises are so awful for the environment, it’s insane.

#1 I think that the land that is above the craton in the USA is arable. — Agree-to-Disagree

#2 The Rocky mountains also run down the west coast of the USA. — Agree-to-Disagree

Both of these observations are correct. Very good.

The depth of soil covering much of the US (let's say north of the Ohio and Missouri Rivers) has been accumulating since the retreat of glaciers from this area about 10,000 years ago. Over that time, between 20 and 100 inches of topsoil has formed (figuring an inch ever 100 to 500 years depending on specific conditions). Across large areas, the topsoil accumulated on top of various subsoils left by the receding glaciers forming soil with very good structure.

Northern Canada consists of tundra which is a treeless biome characterized by cold temperatures, short growing seasons, and permafrost, typically found in Arctic and alpine regions. Tundra is not "soil"; the plant matter hasn't been warmed up long enough to decay into humus. Further, the tundra does not have the firm structure of soil which would allow it to be cultivated, even if other factors (like temperature) allowed it. When tundra thaws, it becomes soft and squishy and will produce tons and tons of methane which will add to global warming.

There are large swaths of Canada covered by boreal forests. Leave the trees alone.

So, even if the average daily temperature of the tundra is the same as central Kansas, it will take a very long time for the tundra to dry out, decay, and become tillable fertile soil. In addition to that, there is no certainty that the temperature so close to the North Pole will ever be warm enough to grow whatever you want to plant.

Our best bet is to grow food for direct human consumption (no large animal feed; maybe no animal feed at all) wherever there is already good soil, sufficient water, and tolerable climate. If we can't grow enough food on the good land that exists now, then the population will shrink. I don't like that, but it seems inescapable.

200,000 people were suffering from hot weather. Then they took shelter in aggressively air-conditioned offices. All dead within hours. — BC

Could you please provide a link to where this claim is made?

FFS, learn how it works! — Vera Mont

Did you read the article from Advanced Science News?

Understanding the impact of climate change on sub-arctic groundwater
- As permafrost thaws, the potential for groundwater storage may increase, increasing the possibility of using groundwater as a resource.
- 99% of domestic use water in the Yukon is from groundwater, and approximately half of Alaskan residents rely on groundwater for their drinking water.
- There are also many advantages; it is drought resistant, often has lower treatment costs, and can be pumped where needed.

That sounds a bit like positive news to me.

Perhaps you should read this article to "learn how it works" with boreal fires in Canada.

https://www.preventionweb.net/news/forest-fires-north-americas-boreal-forests-are-burning-lot-less-150-years-ago

Here are some highlights:
- North American boreal forests burned much more 150 years ago than they do today. In the earliest period covered by our data, between 1700 and 1850, the annual area burned was between two and more than 10 times greater than what has been observed over the past 40 years.
- [fires have] a strong influence on ecosystems, but not necessarily negative
- On the other hand, fires have always been part of forests, and are sometimes even essential to their ecological functioning. Most of the time, the burned landscape will gradually give way to vigorous young trees, which grow into a mature forest in some 50 to 100 years. Some tree species are even dependent on fire to regenerate and as a result, maintain themselves.
- Many animal species are also fond of burned forests. Charred tree trunks provide food for certain insect species, such as the black long-horned beetle. Insects in turn provide abundant food for birds, like black-backed woodpeckers, which use snags (dead standing trees whose roots are still anchored to the ground) to nest.

Did you know about that? Have you learnt anything?

FFS, learn how it works!

Agree to disagree will just spin you around in circles until you’re dizzy.