Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which countries would improve (relatively) and which countries wouldn't be able to survive?
Let say we have this experiment until 2030, who will be the big winners and losers?
I think its fair to say that any country that relies heavily on the imports of food and natural resources to feed its population and maintain infrastructure, would be in a heap of trouble. Even worse if that extends to water.
Which countries would improve (relatively) and which countries wouldn't be able to survive?
Let say we have this experiment until 2030, who will be the big winners and losers?
No country would win. But geographically and resource wise, small countries would suffer the most. U.S.A and Canada might sustain their lifestyle most of Western Europe would have major problems because of zero oil in their countries.
Nigeria wouldn't get any better or worse but with oil, maybe they would be able to keep cars/inter-country trade running. The parts of Africa that were already suffering oil shortage would be relatively fine...
By far, unless most people revert to coal, most non-oil producing countries are screwed and would likely be forced to density. Bike usage would go up immensely.
Quality of life would definitely drop immensely. As even simple things like a Phone is made from parts literally around the world, mass-recycling of materials would happen, but I doubt their would be single country that would benefit from such an event.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 2 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,175 posts, read 13,455,286 times
Reputation: 19471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040
Which countries would improve (relatively) and which countries wouldn't be able to survive?
Let say we have this experiment until 2030, who will be the big winners and losers?
Intensive farming and hydroponics and would have to be the way forward for some smaler countries.
There are very few net food exporters in the world. They are the only ones who would not starve. Canada, The USA, Argentina, maybe Uruguay.
USA and Canada can quickly gear up to be energy self-supporting.
Manufacturing would have to gear back up because competition from China has destroyed it. But there are plenty of qualified workers.
Uruguay has no fuel source and no manufacturing history, no metal source, they would be in trouble.
China would probably be OK. Lots of people would starve, but they have population to spare and they are already in full manufacturing mode. They have coal for power. China is a food producing nation, just not enough to support the current population.
Chile would probably be OK. It's a well run country with lots of resources.
1. We are not an export country. We import our agriculture products. We do have our own agriculture sector but insufficient. So in this regard, there will be food crisis.
2. Business process outsourcing is a huge industry. Millions of young people will be unemployed.
3. There are 10-12M Filipinos working overseas sending $30B remittances. If remittance will stop, it will greatly affect the te consumption. Many private infrastructures will cease, malls and shops will be forced to close down.
But we'll get by. I pity countries that heavily relies on export like China.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.