It is in fact policies to combat global warming that would harm all of those things. Higher energy costs leave poor people in poverty.
Yours is going to be a subjective answer, since you're going to be comparing apples to oranges. Is, for example, (4) the cost of relocating coastal human settlements a lesser or greater harm than (1) the injustice that the nations most likely to be severely impacted by global warming being the same nations that contributed least to the problem? The choices will largely be up to your personal values.
But at least I can help you get started with identifying what the harms are, so you can start making those comparisons. The IPCC is an intergovernmental scientific body that sifts through current climate science and periodically summarizes it. The IPCC's most recent summary on global warming impacts was in 2007. The IPCC's reports are based on independently published research, so when you decide on which type of harm to focus on, use the IPCC's citations to locate the research and evaluate it for yourself (don't just take the IPCC's word for it, they just write the summaries).
Observed changes in climate and their effects (past and continuing impacts, short version)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Projected climate change and its impacts (likely future impacts, short version)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (the really long version)
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Well, you can see that the AGW deniers are sure helpful.
And it's also true that plaigarism is not to be encouraged.
However, I'd choose #3.
clearly human settlements at sea level would have a problem.
clearly when there's disruption, the poor suffer more.
when there's any societal disruption, then peace, security, and social justice decrease.
However, our relationship with nature will be the biggest problem.
Where we grow our food, and what food we can grow.
It's not at all impossible that dust bowl conditions will return to the US.
And similar can happen other places.
Deserts can expand dramatically.
Conditions like that lead to wars over land, water, and food.
4. Human settlements, They would move to colder climates to get away from the oppressive heat. Of course we could have another Ice Age. Just 30 years ago scientists were predicting another Ice Age by the year 2000. Now everyone is talking about global warming just 30 years later. I wish they would make up their minds. These things are likely cyclic and do not occur over a span of 30 years. I would think scientists who are evolutionists would think those with the best tools for survival would survive and adapt.
It is oddly fitting that you are studying this in social science; it certainly is not a 'hard' science. The question you have been required to answer is an example of the 'complex question' fallacy, i.e. a question in which the desired conclusion (there is global warming and it is human-caused) is not argued, but presumed in the stem of the question. This is not a scientific approach to the question; it is a manipulation. Implied within the premise is the idea that the assumed 'truth' of AGW cannot be questioned. Of course, that which cannot be questioned is not science, but dogma (religion).
You are being taught a religion.
Probably human settlements considering the majority of the people on the planet live near the coast.
Kano: I love how you explain exactly what is happening today as a hypothetical situation. If you bothered to do any research yourself, you might have known that.
Oh look below, REAL science. I know you won't bother reading it in fear of learning something and challenging your belief system, but here it is anyways...
Socialism Studies or Social Studies? Most of what your question involves is what the United Nations is already taking care of through "Agenda 21 Depopulation" (you can find it in a YouTube video). A total Socialistic view of the World where people are forced to live under the UN's plan.
Be careful when trusting our Government-run education system. They are the ones perpetuating the "Global Warming Scare".
Climate Science can't even establish what the actual temperature is suppose to be at this point in time. Pretty sad when considering how many tax-payer dollars go to them to figure it out. They use temperature anomalies which have fluctuated by an average of 0.35C every year (in one direction or the other) since 1880 and have varied by as much as 1.78C over this time period. The current trend is downward and seems that we are in for a good and cold winter this winter season (2013).
CO2 can not be causing these temperature fluctuations every year and therefore is not a "forcing" when it comes to temperature. "Natural Climate Variability" has (and always will) control over our Planet's temperature fluctuations.
This is the satellite temperature measurement anomaly (G.I.S.S. Temps) since 1979 : http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-globa... and it shows that we are currently 0.19C above the 30 year (1981 - 2010) average and has been steady since 2000 at that current average above the normal. If you can understand why climate science considers +0.19C (above the established average temperature) to be "Global Warming", then you can understand that they are a little on the "sensitive" side of the issue and not the Planet itself. Do you notice a + or - 0.19C change in your own home?
Oct 1984 -0.62C
Nov '87 +0.28C
Jan '89 -0.42C
May '91 +0.28C
Sep '92 -0.48C
July '95 +0.21C
Feb '97 -0.30C
Feb '98 +0.67C
Jan 2000 -0.33C
You can clearly see that science has a very hard time finding the "elusive" average temperature. That makes it very easy for climate science to make claims based on their "best guess". LOL!
I don't agree with global warming, but as this is a hypothetical question lets try an answer it, which is not easy, because we are not sure what would result from a hotter earth,
I will go with 4. because we would have rising sea levels so people would have to move away from the coasts and low-lying land, agriculture would change, places where we now grow crops might not be suitable in a hotter world, whereas places that are now too cold for agriculture might become suitable for food production, so basically populations would adapt by moving to areas more conducive to productive life.
Global Warming ended in 2012 and all seasons have returned to normal naturally, Environment= all non solids that rise into the upper atmosphere separate into nothingness by nature. Mike
ALL 4
Countries would want to limit the resources they use, so they wouldn't allow immigration to continue because that would mean people coming form poor backgrounds would take advantage of the copious amounts of resoruces available in rich countries. And due to their lack of awareness of how bad our over population situation is, they will just continue to take more and more of our resources.
So as a result of global warming, immigration would decrease
Probably increase in radiation levels, rise in sea levels due to melting ice caps on both poles.
Peace, security and social justice would worsen by quite a lot. Greedy companies would continue to exploit this opportunity to increase prices making poverty worse. There would be conspiracy theorists who would say global warming doesn't exist and activist protesting against the release of carbon emissions
The use of carbon and its emissions would be taxes, worsening the conditions towards working class backgrounds.
Why do you even go to school? Questions like this are just propaganda disguised as knowledge. It is a non-issue. there isn't any AGW.
According to the best records that haven't been corrupted
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/ho...
0.87 degrees rise in temperature in 135 years does not constitute a calamity in global temperature. Anyone who says so is equivalent to a snake oil salesman. You will never learn anything good from them. You will only be taken by them. The only thing you will learn is how utter foolish you have been.
Global warming is a political method of controlling other people, namely suckers.
Quote by Ottmar Edenhoffer, high level UN-IPCC official: "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy...Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization...One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."
Redistribution of wealth is one of the main communist tenets.
Quote by Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Notice: Justice and Equality are code words for Communism.
Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
AGW is all about controlling people and has nothing to do with the environment. Now this is the end that these evil people seek:
Quote from the UN's Own "Agenda 21": "Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level."
Are you ready to be 're-orientated'? I'm not.
Quote by Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.: "The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
If you live in the US and agree with Dixie, you have treasonous feelings, for you are advocating the overthrow of the US government and for the instituting of a One World government. Think about it. That is serious. And your teacher is advocating such utter nonsense? Our forefathers fought and died for that not to ever happen. Think about it.
TRIP: Kano lives by the sea. If anyone would be affected it would be him. On one of your links it came up error 404. Where did you get that link, from ObamaCare? As to the other link, it is garbage. Scientific advancements have caused an increase in crop production more that any climate change. I havent seen any climate change in my 72 years of live. Have you? Ha! Ha! It you expect us to swallow garbage like that dress it up a little.
this is something we are doing in social studies that involves global warming
which of these four social dimensions of environmental sustainability would suffer the greatest harms from global warming.
1. peace, security, and social justice
2. poverty
3. human relationship with nature
4. human settlements
basically, if the earth got even hotter, which of these aspects would be affected the most. please choose only one, and explain.
4 BTW rude to post twice
This is great , you can teach paganism in school but not CHRISTANITY Green is a pagan teaching
Maggie.
Find another school--fast.
