Places becoming more livable

[Hefaistos]

Article about very interesting redistribution of humidity due to global warming. From dry to wet: Rainfall might abruptly increase in Africa’s Sahel . It's a region that historically has been more humid, and 'green' than todays very arid/desert.

"Climate change could turn one of Africa's driest regions into a very wet one by suddenly switching on a Monsoon circulation. For the first time, scientists find evidence in computer simulations for a possible abrupt change to heavy seasonal rainfall in the Sahel, a region that so far has been characterized by extreme dryness. They detect a self-amplifying mechanism which might kick-in beyond 1.5-2 degrees Celsius of global warming."

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/from-dry-to-wet-rainfall-might-abruptly-increase-in-africa2019s-sahel

Research article, paywalled:
http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/495/2017/

[Tom_Mazanec]

Well, Siberia will get more livable:
https://grist.org/article/forget-colonizing-mars-we-can-all-move-to-russia-when-the-world-heats-up/

[kassy]

Maybe you wanted to put that in the less liveable thread?

[b_lumenkraft]

OMG!

Thanks, Kassy!

[Archimid]

Well, Siberia will get more livable:
https://grist.org/article/forget-colonizing-mars-we-can-all-move-to-russia-when-the-world-heats-up/

Only while the Arctic holds and after the NH hemisphere stabilizes after an Arctic collapse ( decades?). In the time in between collapse and climate stabilization Siberia will be uninhabitable.

[Hefaistos]

Global heating: London to have climate similar to Barcelona by 2050
"London will have a similar climate in three decades’ time to that of Barcelona today, according to research – but if that seems enticing, a warning: the change could be accompanied by severe drought."
Severe drought in London?!

OTOH, more places will become less livable: Nearly 80% of cities to undergo dramatic and potentially disastrous changes, study finds. "Among the most concerning findings is that the residents of about a fifth of cities globally – including Jakarta, Singapore, Yangon and Kuala Lumpur – will experience conditions currently not seen in any major cities in the world."

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/10/global-heating-london-similar-climate-barcelona-2050

[TerryM]

I believe the Waterloo Region in Ontario's "livability" has increased over my lifetime.


Improvements:
The river no longer freezes over each year so the Spring Floods, once the fear of everyone up and down the river no longer occur.
The river no longer suffers from pollution and won an international competition for the remediation.
The roadways suffer far less from flooding and frost heaves.
Universities have replaced factories and mills as the major regional employers.
Education has improved;
Healthcare has improved in quality and availability since it was nationalized.
Spring, Summer and Fall have extended. Winters are shorter and warmer.
The available social safety-nets have improved.
Median income & wealth have improved.


Neutral:
Skating has moved indoors.
Swimming is replacing skiing and snowshoeing.
Violent crime is still very much a rarity.
Infrastructure has kept up - Mills became townhouses or restaurants. Factories were bulldozed and replaced with medium rise apartments.
The cops are and were friendly & helpful.


Worse:
Tornados have moved northward and are now seen as threatening.
AC is required in the summer.
Watering lawns in "droughts" is sometimes needed.
Fewer songbirds.
Fewer butterflies, insects.

In all this region has so far weathered global warming well.
I'd say that life here presently is better than it was before the weather began changing.
Terry

[El Cid]

Global heating: London to have climate similar to Barcelona by 2050
"London will have a similar climate in three decades’ time to that of Barcelona today, according to research – but if that seems enticing, a warning: the change could be accompanied by severe drought."
Severe drought in London?!

This research is complete BS. They took the maximum summer temperatures and compared those to current ones hence London to become Barcelona. They did not compare the entire climate, average temps. etc.

Besides, our climate models falsely model, and cannot replicate even the Green Sahara (cca 10k-k yr ago) or the Holocene Optimum (7k yr ago). So I have very serious doubts about the models which do not seem to get changes in atmospheric circulation right. Anyway, FWIW the European Environmental Agency has projections for 2071-2100. They see +3-4C for London with RCP8.5 by 2071-2100. Pretty far from Barcelona.

Anyway: more on topic

Central Europe has seen about 1,5-2 C temp rises since the 1950-80 period, with longer (cca 2 weeks) spring, a much warmer November, less extreme winter lows. Somuchso, that in my country figs are now not exotic anymore (they used to be), and people started to grow kiwi and oriental persimmon (I also have figs and they grow pretty well). There has been a slight increase in rains since the 80s. Summers have warmed the most, making the country more Mediterranean

[RikW]

It's good to see that in the Netherland we have a relative low temperature change in those scenario's;

At least we drown in 'normal' conditions...

[DrTskoul]

It's good to see that in the Netherland we have a relative low temperature change in those scenario's;

At least we drown in 'normal' conditions...

Better than boil.... although A/C s will become more prevalent up north that they used to be

[Tom_Mazanec]

Lake Erie may be next wine belt:
https://buffalonews.com/2019/07/22/could-lake-eries-grape-belt-be-the-next-napa-valley/

[TerryM]

Lake Erie may be next wine belt:
https://buffalonews.com/2019/07/22/could-lake-eries-grape-belt-be-the-next-napa-valley/

Just north of Lake Erie you'll find vineyards to either side of the road.
And the palm trees at Port Dover provide much needed shade.
Terry

[Tom_Mazanec]

Climate change might benefit Canada — but not enough to outweigh costs: expert
https://globalnews.ca/news/5836813/climate-change-cost-to-canada/

A report earlier this summer by Moody’s Analytics made headlines for its assessment of a report by the UN’s Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which the analytics firm made the case that while many countries will suffer a heavy cost from climate change, Canada could see benefits.

Those would most likely come in the form of more arable land, a longer growing season, and the potential to produce more crops.

[sidd]

Mmmm ... one effect i did not expect, on the upside: coastal dunes actually greening and stabilizing

doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2019.103026

"Initial large areas of bare mobile sand within the main dune field are broken into isolated basins separated by vegetation. These basins then gradually reduce in size as vegetation colonises the margins, creating a predominantly stable dune landscape. "

"Worldwide, continental wind speeds have decreased by 5–15% during the last 30 years, and are generally expected to continue decreasing during the 21st-century "

"Our analysis points to a clear ‘greening’ of coastal dunes over the past three decades"

"The synchronous period of global wind stilling reduces fluxes of wind-blown sand and creates the stability necessary to enable vegetation to colonise bare dune sand. "

"This ironically may have implications for how coastal erosion scenarios play out in the future with sediments not being allowed to migrate inland and some dune fringed coasts may accumulate more sand at their seaward edge than normal, effectively lessening their erosional potential as a result of buffering up dune erosion response to storms."

sidd

[liefde]

It's good to see that in the Netherlands we have a relative low temperature change in those scenario's;

Not as far as I can see. Olive trees and Figs are fairly common here now as well. We can grow pretty much every Mediterranean plant reasonably successful on our South facing gardens.
We have insects from the Mediterranean now, mosquitos and moths from sub-tropical areas are surviving our winters. Ticks no longer die in the winter. And triple the amount of heatwaves each Summer compared to the 1970s even. And I doubt we'll ever see an elfstedentocht again. Ice is too thin.

[Klondike Kat]

Lake Erie may be next wine belt:
https://buffalonews.com/2019/07/22/could-lake-eries-grape-belt-be-the-next-napa-valley/

Possibly.  The authors compare the Lake Erie wine growing region with Bordeaux and Tuscany, which are at higher latitudes.  Trends show that the growing season has already grown and according to the authors, “This warming trend could allow for the introduction of alternative grape varieties, drastically improving the limited availability of cool-climate ... cultivars,” the study concluded. “Varieties such as Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon and Syrah, which require warmer climates, would likely thrive.” 

[TerryM]

^^
Vineyards have reached the southern city limits of Hamilton within the last 10 years, and that's a ways north of Lake Erie.
I wouldn't be surprised if the newer vineyards are even further north.


The palm trees at Port Dover and Turkey Point are a nice addition to the Beach Resorts, and I saw an ornamental banana tree in Vancouver yard last time I was out west.


The crops seem to be rushing north faster than many urbanites are aware.
Terry

[Tom_Mazanec]

Has anyone tried calculating the balance between places becoming more livable and places becoming less livable?
For example, would 2˚C warming kill more people in Twinsburg from heat stroke than it would save from winter weather traffic accidents (for example)?

[kassy]

That is not really possible since there are all kinds of different issues with different solutions so the outcome would be nonsense. You can project the current climate trend but we cannot project what measures will be taken or not.   

[Shared Humanity]

^^
Vineyards have reached the southern city limits of Hamilton within the last 10 years, and that's a ways north of Lake Erie.
I wouldn't be surprised if the newer vineyards are even further north.


The palm trees at Port Dover and Turkey Point are a nice addition to the Beach Resorts, and I saw an ornamental banana tree in Vancouver yard last time I was out west.


The crops seem to be rushing north faster than many urbanites are aware.
Terry

Crops can move as fast as people plant them. Forests will only move north if nations embark on an all out effort to move entire ecosystems north. It would be messy. Mistakes would be made but this kind of mitigation should already be occurring.

[TerryM]

^^
Vineyards have reached the southern city limits of Hamilton within the last 10 years, and that's a ways north of Lake Erie.
I wouldn't be surprised if the newer vineyards are even further north.


The palm trees at Port Dover and Turkey Point are a nice addition to the Beach Resorts, and I saw an ornamental banana tree in Vancouver yard last time I was out west.


The crops seem to be rushing north faster than many urbanites are aware.
Terry

Crops can move as fast as people plant them. Forests will only move north if nations embark on an all out effort to move entire ecosystems north. It would be messy. Mistakes would be made but this kind of mitigation should already be occurring.

I'm not sure that it's possible here in Canada. We've lost millions of trees to pine beetles & will lose millions more. Our tree line is constrained in part by winter insolation, & it's hard to grow trees in the dark.


More southern climes may see alpine tree lines increase in elevation but increased desertification will more than undermine those gains. I think that fires, drought and flooding will have the greatest "natural" effects on forests. If we continue burning forests and bulldozing them for agriculture & industry the natural losses will never be mitigated.
Terry

[Sebastian Jones]

^^
Vineyards have reached the southern city limits of Hamilton within the last 10 years, and that's a ways north of Lake Erie.
I wouldn't be surprised if the newer vineyards are even further north.


The palm trees at Port Dover and Turkey Point are a nice addition to the Beach Resorts, and I saw an ornamental banana tree in Vancouver yard last time I was out west.


The crops seem to be rushing north faster than many urbanites are aware.
Terry

Crops can move as fast as people plant them. Forests will only move north if nations embark on an all out effort to move entire ecosystems north. It would be messy. Mistakes would be made but this kind of mitigation should already be occurring.

I'm not sure that it's possible here in Canada. We've lost millions of trees to pine beetles & will lose millions more. Our tree line is constrained in part by winter insolation, & it's hard to grow trees in the dark.


More southern climes may see alpine tree lines increase in elevation but increased desertification will more than undermine those gains. I think that fires, drought and flooding will have the greatest "natural" effects on forests. If we continue burning forests and bulldozing them for agriculture & industry the natural losses will never be mitigated.
Terry

According to this research, there is another constraint on tree lines moving north. They do not identify the constraint, but I rather suspect it may have something to do with mycorrhiza- or rather their absence.
https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/view/69593

[TerryM]

^^
Strange, just yesterday I'd been researching the thick beds of lichen I'd witnessed in the boreal forest of Northern Quebec. Beautiful, but delicate and unbelievably slow growing fungal/bacterial organisms in a symbiotic relationship.


Some seem to believe that in a warming world plant cultivation can simply move northward. Certain plants will undoubtedly make the transition, most will not. In much of Canada the glaciers striped away everything but rock, and rocks don't provide much for trees, (or crops) to live on.
Rock, muskeg and melting permafrost won't host food crops.
Terry

[nanning]

How can any place on the surface of the Earth become 'more livable'?
Isn't that overlooking the elephant-on-fire in the room?

'more livable' could mean the new safe place that climate refugees are seeking. Where can climate refugees best go to?
Of course that depends on money and passport type

'more livable' could mean you have money to buy airco or a boat. Or food or potable water.

'more livable' only for the short term.


Is that what is meant by the title of this thread?: Short term solutions?

[TerryM]

^^
Perhaps it's a relative term, such as "Toronto will become more livable than Miami"?


My little neck of the woods certainly has become warmer, which at this latitude equals more livable for most.


When the grid eventually comes down, livability everywhere becomes problematic and long term solutions become less probable everywhere.


What appears short term to you might be terminal in my eyes. What timelines were you considering?
Terry

[nanning]

I refer to 'short term' because of the accelerating terminal effects of the elephant-on-fire in the room: The global AGW/Biosphere-collapse.
Civilisation will find out it can't survive without ecosystem functions and can't survive the effects of +4°C.

The idea of "Places becoming more livable" is absurd I think.

The idea of forests as an endangered resource is absurd I think. That view of other lifeforms is supremacy and insane.

[El Cid]

Civilisation will find out it can't survive without ecosystem functions and can't survive the effects of +4°C.

The idea of "Places becoming more livable" is absurd I think.

Civilization really can't survive without ecosystems. However, warming by itself will not cause ecosystem collapse. The world has seen huge temperature swings without ecosytem collapse, eg. at the end of the last ice age, European temperatures went up by 5-15 C within a matter of decades if not years (based on greenland ice core measurements!)

So, thinking that a 4 C temperature rise will somehow destroy ecosytems is totally baseless scientifically. There WILL be places becoming more liveable, Canada is a prime example - and most of Europe by the way. As for the tropics: they will have serious problems.

[Aluminium]

The most people live in relatively good climate with high chance to became worse. Some places currently almost unlivable because of low temperature or/and precipiation and easily may be more livable after moderate warming. Latitudes between -50°...+50° contain 77% of the surface and 80% of the land is not a desert.

[nanning]

El Cid, anthropogenic biosphere collapse (and mass extinction of life) are happening without a high temperature rise. Civilisation is doing it by itself.
The +4°C GMST is a separate effect. It is from anthropogenic global warming i.e. civilisation is doing it.

I think you are deluded if you think Canada will improve. Wait until the forests start burning and dying. Wait until Canada has received millions of climate refugees. Could the Alberta tar sands burn? Where will Canada's food come from without ecosystem functions? Where will Canada's potable water come from once aquifers are empty? Glaciers are disappearing so no hydropower.

[Avalonian]

Civilization really can't survive without ecosystems. However, warming by itself will not cause ecosystem collapse. The world has seen huge temperature swings without ecosytem collapse, eg. at the end of the last ice age, European temperatures went up by 5-15 C within a matter of decades if not years (based on greenland ice core measurements!)

So, thinking that a 4 C temperature rise will somehow destroy ecosytems is totally baseless scientifically. There WILL be places becoming more liveable, Canada is a prime example - and most of Europe by the way. As for the tropics: they will have serious problems.

Disagree with this, El Cid. On the one hand, there is the critical issue of rate of change; while ecosystems and evolution can adapt to certain types of change, once it accelerates past a certain point those buffer systems struggle. That's the factor behind most of the mass extinction events: rapid changes, pushing things beyond the variability that organisms and ecosystems are adapted to.
    More importantly, though (and as you know) a rapid 4C rise in temperature is a summary; in reality, this is associated with preciptation changes, spread of oceanic dead zones, acidification, oxygenation fluctuations, and so on. It's not the temperature rise that matters, but everything that goes with it... and that is more than capable to pushing global ecosystems into a crisis in my view.

[oren]

In addition to all the above: northern locations in Canada and Russia will become warmer and thus maybe more livable in theory, but when permafrost ground turns into a soggy bog and all housing and infrastructure built on it is damaged, I doubt the local inhabitants will thank AGW.

[Hefaistos]

...
 As for the tropics: they will have serious problems.

I strongly doubt that statement about the tropics - do you have some scientific evidence for that?
I think that deep convection handles most imbalances in the tropics. The serious problems will be in the subtropics.

[dnem]

Comparing how a fully intact biosphere adapted to rapid climate change in the past with how the present, highly stressed, massively altered, depauperate, poisoned biosphere will respond to rapid AGW is meaningless. 

I have no doubt that enough genetic diversity will remain in the biosphere for it to recover over geologic time, but that is irrelevant to the reliance of 8+ billion humans on the biosphere over the coming decades.  Biosphere and ecosystem collapse will be a huge stressor on the ability of the earth to support the overlarge human population.

[KiwiGriff]

Gaia will not care on her time scales its just a sneeze.
Humans on the other hand.
Coral reefs go at 1.5C that is in the next couple of decades. Many fisheries depend on the reefs for a part of their life cycle  as reefs decay coastlines will be exposed to more erosion.
The amazon transitions to savanna at about 3C . Borel forests are dying now with repercussions for permafrost and all the ecologys that depend on the forests. Fire and human infrastructure are not compatible as these forest change they will burn with more frequency.
 Many species will become extinct as our activity will block them adapting to the changes or migrating as the climate zones shift.

It is the speed of change and the delay between the old dying and the new ecology's that will arise that will effect us "smart" monkeys.

[gerontocrat]

Gaia will not care on her time scales its just a sneeze.

In one of Lovelock's books he says the Planet Earth is in late middle age. Thus if we manage to snuff out most of life on earth (and ourselves), it may be too late for a new form of intelligent life to emerge. After all, it took a very long time for evolution to get to where it is now.

ps: Will NZ be more or less livable as the Land of the Long White Cloud gets its unfair share of climate refugees? (As has already started as the rich look for safe places).

[nanning]

^^
For the love of Earth, please don't let there be another intelligent species emerging. Some of them will again at some point feel supreme through technology and start a civilisation and initiate another total destruction. A new sort of human is the worst that could happen to future Earth life.
Intelligence -> rich fantasies mixed with emotions. Civilisation humans think they are a predator. Look at their teeth and molars. it is an Insane fantasy -> destruction.

Civilisation is only a small and recent part of humanity but the chance of one emerging from an intelligent species is almost 100%.
Civilisation is not life. It is anti-life.
Civilisation is supremacy -> insanity -> total destruction  (look what this civilisation has done to life, to the once beautiful Earth)

[KiwiGriff]

I used to think NZ would get off due to the moderation effects of the pacific ocean
I am not so sure now as the risk for one of our city's getting hammered by a tropical cyclone rises each year. Our building codes do not encompass that higher wind speed. 
The result when one hits will be a cyclone Tracy level of destruction. Google it.
NZ has one of the longest coastlines of any country sea level rise will have a huge impact here.

As to refugees To remote for us to get tens of thousands  boat people.
The rich? They bring money so good for our economy at present.
 Some  seem to think coming here will be viable bolt hole if civilization collapses.
If your money is no good and you don't bring the skill sets needed you will not be  safer here.

[Shared Humanity]

Comparing how a fully intact biosphere adapted to rapid climate change in the past with how the present, highly stressed, massively altered, depauperate, poisoned biosphere will respond to rapid AGW is meaningless. 

I have no doubt that enough genetic diversity will remain in the biosphere for it to recover over geologic time, but that is irrelevant to the reliance of 8+ billion humans on the biosphere over the coming decades.  Biosphere and ecosystem collapse will be a huge stressor on the ability of the earth to support the overlarge human population.

I agree.

[El Cid]

Couple of points:

- As I have said (and proven by science), previous ice ages came and ended very-very quickly (in a matter of years or decades with 5-15 C swings!), probably even quicker than the current era of AGW, so the idea that ecosystems will not be able to cope is quite groundless...to which you reply: but those were "intact" ecosystems. Well, it does not matter. Adaptation speed is not dependent on species number, it is based on adaptation speed.
- but, but: precipitation patterns will change. YES, they will. We had a Green Sahara just 5 k years ago, and forests in Central Asia. This is nothing new. We might even see the Sahara greening again!
- permafrost: I attach a map of the permafrost. Cca 1 million million people live in those areas in NA (750k in Alaska and at most 250 k in canada), and a maximum of 3-5 million in Russia (the whole of Yakutia eg has only 1 million people on 3 m sq km!!!) and it is not a surprise, it's not nice there. This is a non-issue relative to the size of the economy
- NZ: I think more people will die of earthquakes there during this century than due to climate change. It is very much protected, probably one of the biggest winners
- human population: this is absolutely true, there are simply too many humans for this planet, but I do not think that any of you would have an IMMEDIATE solution
- if electricity goes all goes...well I would refer to WW2. It seems  that you can have a normal country and government with little food and electricity (eg Russia or UK)

All in all, climate change will undoubtedly hurt, but humans are much more adaptable than you would think. Witness the 2 world wars, or just the last one in Germany: everything was destroyed there and yet, after 20 years they emerged as a highly developed country again.

I am not saying that nothing is to be done - on the contrary, many things will have to change: what we eat, what we wear, how we travel, how we build our homes, etc, etc. This is happening. Yes, it should happen faster, I agree, but don't count out humans just yet!

[Tom_Mazanec]

All in all, climate change will undoubtedly hurt, but humans are much more adaptable than you would think. Witness the 2 world wars, or just the last one in Germany: everything was destroyed there and yet, after 20 years they emerged as a highly developed country again.

How long would it have taken Germany without the Marshall Plan and the rest of the world helping?

[blumenkraft]

Can't be said the Marshall Plan didn't help Germany, but it also can't be said how it would have evolved without one.

I think the most visionary intention of the Marshall Plan was to interconnect Germany with other countries in Europe economically.

The EU might have never evolved?

[Shared Humanity]

...but don't count out humans just yet!

I absolutely agree. Would not be at all surprised if 1 billion humans make it through the great winnowing.

What that will look like in 2200 is a subject for science fiction writers but we should not expect anything that looks like modern civilization.

[gerontocrat]

...but don't count out humans just yet!

I absolutely agree. Would not be at all surprised if 1 billion humans make it through the great winnowing.

What that will look like in 2200 is a subject for science fiction writers but we should not expect anything that looks like modern civilization.

we should not expect anything that looks like modern civilization.  ??

plus ça change

exclamation
used to express resigned acknowledgement of the fundamental immutability of human nature and institutions.

[Tom_Mazanec]

...but don't count out humans just yet!

I absolutely agree. Would not be at all surprised if 1 billion humans make it through the great winnowing.

What that will look like in 2200 is a subject for science fiction writers but we should not expect anything that looks like modern civilization.

Since we had more than that before FF and the Americas were not fully settled, that seems reasonable.

[dnem]

...but don't count out humans just yet!

I absolutely agree. Would not be at all surprised if 1 billion humans make it through the great winnowing.

I generally agree SH. There is one wildcard out there that I can't quite wrap my head around.  (And this is probably the wrong thread for it). What is the likelihood that systems fail to the degree that we cannot maintain cooling and control at multiple (hundreds?) of nuclear reactor and waste storage sites and we have hundreds of simultaneous meltdowns? It's something I read about but don't have the expertise to assess.

[Tom_Mazanec]

...but don't count out humans just yet!

I absolutely agree. Would not be at all surprised if 1 billion humans make it through the great winnowing.

I generally agree SH. There is one wildcard out there that I can't quite wrap my head around.  (And this is probably the wrong thread for it). What is the likelihood that systems fail to the degree that we cannot maintain cooling and control at multiple (hundreds?) of nuclear reactor and waste storage sites and we have hundreds of simultaneous meltdowns? It's something I read about but don't have the expertise to assess.

In Greer’s novel (the ecosophia guy) so many reactors melted down that mutants were common and large areas uninhabitable.

[oren]

- human population: this is absolutely true, there are simply too many humans for this planet, but I do not think that any of you would have an IMMEDIATE solution

El cid, on the contrary, the immediate solution is to reduce childbirth to one per woman, this would reduce global population in 2050 (which I estimate will be the crisis point) by about 2.5 billion down from the expected 10 billion.

Since we had more than that before FF and the Americas were not fully settled, that seems reasonable.

Bear in mind those 1 billion people back in 1800 had much lower levels of resource consumption per capita, resources were more abundant, and the global environment with much less cumulative pollution.
However, barring some extra human-made catastrophe (WW3, nuclear plant meltdowns, pandemic, Mad Max dystopia etc.) I also estimate the Earth post-AGW will be able to support roughly a billion humans.

[El Cid]

Yes, Oren, we all know that the theoretical solution is reducing childbirth, but that is not a solution in reality because you can not make it happen. Look at Africa: 1 billion people in 1995, 2 billion by 2050 and 4 by 2100 - based on current projections (and demographics is not easy to change).
My question was not based on theory but about actual, doable solutions.

As for your projection that a post AGW world would be able to support only 1 billion people I find it highly doubtful as we can already easily grow enough food for 15 billion (provided that meat is off the table)

Tom,

The Marshall plan was not very big for Germany. The USA gave away 12 billion usd, of which "only" 1.5 billion went to Germany. In total, recipient countries received cca 3% of their GDP, Germany received less than that, cca 1-2%. For comparison: Eastern European countries received 10-30 (!!!!) % of their GDP during 2013-2020 from EU funds.

As for places becoming more liveable, I agree with Voltaire: tend to your gardens, and the world will become a better place

[blumenkraft]

Well, the Marshall Plan was way more than just financial aid, El Cid.

Also:

The Marshall Plan provided aid to the recipients essentially on a per capita basis, with larger amounts given to major industrial powers, such as West Germany, France and Great Britain. This was based on the belief of Marshall and his advisors that recovery in these larger nations was essential to overall European recovery.

Still, not all participating nations benefitted equally. Nations such as Italy, who had fought with the Axis powers alongside Nazi Germany, and those who remained neutral (e.g., Switzerland) received less assistance per capita than those countries who fought with the United States and the other Allied powers.

The notable exception was West Germany: Though all of Germany was damaged significantly toward the end of World War II, a viable and revitalized West Germany was seen as essential to economic stability in the region, and as a not-so-subtle rebuke of the communist government and economic system on the other side of the “Iron Curtain” in East Germany.

Link >> https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/marshall-plan-1

[El Cid]

this is OT, but my above numbers are correct

my original statement was that humanity (if well organized and having a certain culture/workethic, you name it) can come back from real serious collapses, just like it happened after ww2 in many countries, most notably germany. the marshall plan was miniscule relative to the huge comeback of germany (or italy for that matter) or relative to the aid new eu members receive. It was not due to aid but due to determination, culture, societal structure, etc. The same would happen if for any unknown reason the grid would collapse