NationStates Jolt Archive

ALTHOUGH the consensus from APEC was that much had been achieved, this feeling may not be shared by many of the people who live throughout the Asia-Pacific region.

The Prime Minister's words may well come back to haunt him: "The next meeting will never achieve everything we would like, but the world will not come to an end." For some people living in the Pacific, the world — their world, to be specific — is coming to an end.

As early as 2000, the United Nations predicted that developing countries would be affected first and worst by climate change. Many Pacific countries are already feeling the effects and UN predictions for the Pacific are dire.

Pacific islands, in particular those with low-lying islands and predominantly coastal communities, are extremely vulnerable. Rising sea levels not only erode the coastline and threaten fish stocks but also increase the frequency and severity of violent storms and cyclones, making the lives of people who live in these areas all but impossible.

UN reports are ominous in their predictions — a sign that things are set to get much worse. Sea-level rises of up to 59 centimetres, more intense tropical cyclones, heavy rains and more natural disasters are already prevalent in coastal communities and low-lying parts of the world.

Extremely bad weather or rising sea levels are forcing people from their homes and destroying traditional ways of life. Most of these communities are faced with a twofold crisis — having to abandon their homes and traditional lands, but with nowhere to go.

Geography makes the compelling case that climate change is already affecting the world's poorest people. In the Marshall Islands, about 60 hectares of dry land (8.6 per cent of the total land area) could be lost to erosion.

Likewise in Kiribati, 12.5 per cent of the total land area will be vulnerable with a one-metre rise in sea level. Saltwater intrusion is already ruining taro patches and spoiling well water. Houses are being flooded and coastlines are receding.

At least two small islets have already disappeared in Kiribati. In Tuvalu, sea levels have risen by 20 to 30 centimetres in the past 100 years, flooding lowlands. Coastal erosion is eating away at the nine islands that make up the country and saltwater intrusion is adversely affecting drinking water and food production. In Australia, 8000 people live on permanently inhabited islands in the Torres Strait. On some of the low-lying islands parts of the interior are below sea level.

Although emissions targets and economic sustainability made it onto the APEC agenda, the already desperate situation of many people who live in the Asia-Pacific region did not.

Oxfam has emphasised that the response of governments needs to be the same as any country or population facing an emergency or disaster — we need to help.

For most of the emergencies that have been created by climate change, there are two possible responses: adapt or relocate. In Tuvalu, where the entire land mass consists of low-lying atolls, the population is left with no choice but to evacuate.

In other cases, such as Papua New Guinea, affected people can be moved to higher ground. In either case, the question is who should pay — those who can afford it (developed countries) or those who can't (developing countries)?

Oxfam's Adapting to Climate Change report shows that the costs of adaptation in developing countries will be about $17 billion a year and that Australia's fair share (based on our contribution as a nation to global carbon emissions) would be $1.7 billion towards developing countries' adaptation needs.

This amount clearly dwarfs both the contributions of the Federal Government to developing country adaptation and Labor's new pledge of $150 million over three years.

The effects of climate change across the Asia-Pacific region are endemic but not uniform. The APEC summit ignored the immediate situation of countries and communities that are already having to adapt.

Adaptation funding must be provided to these people immediately so that they do not suffer any further from a situation that is not of their making.

Equity is at the heart of the climate change debate. Those affected the most are, perversely, those least responsible. As a major emitter, Australia has a moral obligation to act now and help its neighbours. We have the means, but now we need the political will.

Andrew Hewett is executive director of Oxfam Australia.


(source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/australia-should-help-the-drowning-nations/2007/09/13/1189276896494.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1))

(For the disastrous situation in Kiribati, see also post #22 of this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13068930&postcount=22).)

It's not a hypothetical future - as we too often believe in the West; it's a reality right now. :(

(source (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/australia-should-help-the-drowning-nations/2007/09/13/1189276896494.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1))

It's not a hypothetical future - as we too often believe in the West; it's a reality right now. :(

No, it's not hypothetical. Unfortunately, those nations are going to be utterly screwed.

First, they ARE going under. Nothing can prevent that now. But they also aren't going to be getting much help.

Because that money is going to be going into protecting the infrastructure of the developed nations. Australia, for instance, is a nation of coast. As far as population goes, we're a ring of people around a whole lotta nothin'. The cities here are going to be just as vulnerable to going under as some of those islands - and that will not be permissable. Dykes and seawalls loom large in the future, and those are EXPENSIVE.

Oh, we might well be willing to allow refugees to come here, but the nations of Tuvalu and Kiribati are quite doomed.

Indeed.

On the same topic, an article from der Spiegel:


What Will Become of Tuvalu's Climate Refugees?

International legal experts are discovering climate change law, and the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is a case in point: The Polynesian archipelago is doomed to disappear beneath the ocean. Now lawyers are asking what sort of rights citizens have when their homeland no longer exists.

Shuuichi Endou is photographing every single citizen in a country. It may sound ludicrous but it is entirely plausible. After all, the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu only has about 11,000 inhabitants, and the 41-year-old Japanese photographer has already captured the images of the 340 people who live on the Nukulaelae atoll. By the time next year's G-8 Summit in Japan rolls around, the other 10,500 portraits should be finished. Endou wants to use them to give the rich and powerful a jolt, so that they finally understand the need to reduce emissions and stop global warming.

The photographs of the Tuvaluans are meant to give climate change a human face. They are a people whose country is doomed to disappear. The group of islands lies just 10 centimeters (roughly four inches) above sea level; if the average sea level continues to rise, in just 50 years there will be nothing here but waves.

Some of the islands are already uninhabitable; the ocean nibbles at the narrow landmass from all sides. Nine islands totaling just 26 square kilometers (10 square miles) in area make up the fourth-smallest country in the world. There's hardly any industry, no military, few cars and just eight kilometers of paved roads.

The majority of the people make their living from fishing and agriculture. The country is so small that there is only a rough division of labor, with people acting as cooks and captains, ice cream salesmen and politicians.

Environmentalists have long worried about the fate of this tiny Pacific state. Now, however, international legal experts have also taken up the topic of its imminent demise. A nation's "territorial integrity" is one of the paramount legal principles. It's unprecedented, however, for a country to completely lose its territory without the use of military force.

"Is it supposed to become a virtual country?" asked Rainer Lagoni, Professor of Maritime Law at the University of Hamburg. There is no legal definition for a country entirely without land.

"Is it supposed to become a virtual country?" asked Rainer Lagoni, Professor of Maritime Law at the University of Hamburg. There is no legal definition for a country entirely without land.

The case of these Atlantis countries is so convoluted that Lagoni has all his students and postgraduates studying it. Only one thing seems clear so far: without a physical territory, all the Tuvaluans become stateless. There is no general right to a back-up nation or to citizenship of a neighboring country. Those who are already emigrating are not considered refugees. Even so, their numbers are growing. This island nation has already dealt with floods, tropical storms and El Niño for a long time. But those studying climate change are predicting an even bleaker future. Every schoolchild in Tuvalu learns to fear "global warming." It serves as the collective term for spoiled harvests, salty pools and the waves that keep rolling closer and closer, right up to airport runway.

"Many inhabitants of the main island of Funafuti want to emigrate," says Endou, who not only photographs each citizen but also asks about his or her current living situation. Young families in particular are fleeing the earth that is slowly sinking beneath their feet. Over 3,000 Tuvaluans have already left their homeland; the largest exile community is in Auckland, New Zealand. In the meantime, however, refugees are increasingly knocking on locked doors, particularly in nearby Australia, where immigration has long been an election issue.


The rest of the article can be read here (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,505819,00.html).

Here are two of Endou's photos of Tuvaluan people:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6845/94947705ih6.jpg

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5377/64857407ah0.jpg

Bravo to Endou; hopefully it will be less easy for the world to remain indifferent to the plight of individuals whose images they've actually seen - real individual people rather than statistics.

This is Fongafale, the atoll where the capital city, Funafuti, is located:

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/4447/23300553oy9.jpg

Indeed.

On the same topic, an article from der Spiegel:



The rest of the article can be read here (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,505819,00.html).

Here are two of Endou's photos of Tuvaluan people:

http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/6845/94947705ih6.jpg

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5377/64857407ah0.jpg

Bravo to Endou; hopefully it will be less easy for the world to remain indifferent to the plight of individuals whose images they've actually seen - real individual people rather than statistics.

This is Fongafale, the atoll where the capital city, Funafuti, is located:

http://img458.imageshack.us/img458/4447/23300553oy9.jpg

Looks to be a beautiful little pacific nation.
Alas, what can really be done to save them? Looks like we're all just a little too late. Fantastic idea with the photos though. A human face should help to get the message (that the world really is getting fucked) across.

I say bring the 11k Tuvalu inhabitants to Hawaii and let them set up shop on the Big Island. Plenty of room to absorb these people and with an enviroment that they are used to. Also there is a large Polynesian population already in the Hawaiian Islands,

I say bring the 11k Tuvalu inhabitants to Hawaii and let them set up shop on the Big Island. Plenty of room to absorb these people and with an enviroment that they are used to. Also there is a large Polynesian population already in the Hawaiian Islands,

That could be an idea. It would need political will from the United States, though.

Tuvaluans have been pressing for some sort of resettlement help from Australia or New Zealand (NZ is the main destination for Tuvaluan migrants).

Oh, and yes, Hawaii has a large Polynesian population, because it was once an independent Polynesian kingdom (recognised internationally as a sovereign state). (I wonder how many people know that?)

Poor people, I honestly hope that they'll be alright, which doesn't seem like its going to happen :(

Im not sure how true it is but i recently heard that in the event of there islands becoming uninhabitable little johnny howard made it clear that he would offer citizenship to alot of those folks. I know he did offer citzenship to naru(sp?) because there entire econmy relied on someform of bird shit making phosphorus and they were running out or something but apparently they turned it down. I have also heard vicious rumours that the plans australia has in place when the sea levels rise actully factor in taking in millions of people whose islands have sunk under the sea level. yes these are rumours but i heard them so who knows, rumours are fun :p

Oh, and yes, Hawaii has a large Polynesian population, because it was once an independent Polynesian kingdom (recognised internationally as a sovereign state). (I wonder how many people know that?)
I did.;)

Oh, and yes, Hawaii has a large Polynesian population, because it was once an independent Polynesian kingdom (recognised internationally as a sovereign state). (I wonder how many people know that?)

I'd say most Americans know that, but many wrongly seem to think Hawaii's entry into the US wasn't coerced or forced in any way.

I'd say most Americans know that, but many wrongly seem to think Hawaii's entry into the US wasn't coerced or forced in any way.

I think very few people have a good idea of the diplomatic three-way war that eventually made Hawaii a state. Which is a pity; it's a fascinating piece of history, combining realpolitik, honest idealism, and multiple viewpoints of what would be best for all concerned.

Give them all buckets and tell them to get busy.

Give them all buckets and tell them to get busy.

Nice:D

This ought to be a global issue, however, I would not advocate western intervention upon a state level. Charity drives; yes, and I'd give a fair amount to them as well.

"Rising sea levels not only erode the coastline and threaten fish stocks but also increase the frequency and severity of violent storms and cyclones, making the lives of people who live in these areas all but impossible."

Phew.

Thank goodness for that.

Nice:D

This ought to be a global issue, however, I would not advocate western intervention upon a state level. Charity drives; yes, and I'd give a fair amount to them as well.

No offence, but exactly what sort of charity replaces a missing land-mass?

Nor are they asking for "intervention". They are asking for a place willing to offer citizenship. Money, frankly, is a complete non-issue in this case.

No offence, but exactly what sort of charity replaces a missing land-mass?

Nor are they asking for "intervention". They are asking for a place willing to offer citizenship. Money, frankly, is a complete non-issue in this case.

Flood defences and the like? They worked for the Netherlands.

As for money being a "non-issue" (ugly as fuck I feel), it is far from immaterial; immigration upon the scale, and with the lack of selection, suggested, can only cost the recipient country greatly.

Flood defences and the like? They worked for the Netherlands.

As for money being a "non-issue" (ugly as fuck I feel), it is far from immaterial; immigration upon the scale, and with the lack of selection, suggested, can only cost the recipient country greatly.

It is probably more complicated if the nations in question are islands.

It is probably more complicated if the nations in question are islands.

To the extent the any measures taken would have no effect?

Flood defences and the like? They worked for the Netherlands.

As for money being a "non-issue" (ugly as fuck I feel), it is far from immaterial; immigration upon the scale, and with the lack of selection, suggested, can only cost the recipient country greatly.

The netherlands are a wealthy European country with portions below sea level and a nice continental shelf to build on. You expect charity to build a flood-gate around a coral atoll in the middle of the ocean? Have you any notion of the engineering that this would require?

As to the "costs" of 11,000 people immigrating to a given country, frankly that is a minor blip for most countries as far as immigration goes. In 2000 New Zealand allowed nearly 40,000 to immigrate. Australia allowed 70,000. Hell, Germany allowed 650,000 new people in that year.


And given that there is a bit of time to play with, it's not as if it has to be done all at once either. Could local charities get involved to offer the government help with re-settling issues, job promises, etc.? Sure.

Or maybe the citizens will simply tell the government "yeah, this is a worthwhile use of our tax dollars".


but the notion offered which I took exception to that this could all be solved with charity is still silly. Charity can't confer citizenship, and without citizenship they are - quite literally - sunk.

"Rising sea levels not only erode the coastline and threaten fish stocks but also increase the frequency and severity of violent storms and cyclones, making the lives of people who live in these areas all but impossible."

Phew.

Thank goodness for that.

"All but" means "almost", and is perfectly correct English. It was, apparently, coined by Marvell (http://www.answers.com/topic/all-but).

It's not the same thing as "anything but". In fact, it's the opposite.

"All but" means "almost", and is perfectly correct English. It was, apparently, coined by Marvell (http://www.answers.com/topic/all-but).

It's not the same thing as "anything but". In fact, it's the opposite.

It's also synonymous with "Not"

As can be witnessed when saying "All but dead" = "Not Dead"

I have seen people use it as meaning "All but impossible = Impossible"

Here's a perfect example: Also, depending on when we take our Spartans from, they may have had iron weapons. In that case, the Viking technology advantage all but disappears.

From the Spartan Vs Viking thread.

"It's too late to save my country," says Kiribati's President

This is an Australian news video report (http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3002425) on the dire threat of climate change in Kiribati. (The video contains an advert first; just wait for it to end.) Kiribati's President, Anote Tong, says it's too late to save the country from destruction, which may take place within 50 years. The issue now is resettlement of the inevitable climate refugees (Kiribati has a population of just over 100,000), and the question of their citizenship rights once their country no longer exists.