NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a question rarely raised. When some countries become uninhabitable in a few decades, and the population has to be evacuated, where should they be resettled? They'll have to go somewhere - i.e., be resettled in another country. So where exactly should they go?

And it's not just Tuvalu. Increased floods, droughts and other environmental disasters seem likely to force millions of people to flee from Third World countries during our generation. Again, they will obviously have to go somewhere. How do you think the world should / can cope?


The islanders of Tuvalu could lose their homes and much of their land in the coming decades. But the world has yet to figure out how it will deal with them, and millions of others, who may be displaced by climate change.

"It's a game of political pass the parcel," said Andrew Simms, policy director at British think-tank New Economics Foundation.

"No one wants to be left holding the problem of climate refugees."

It is a problem with immediate resonance in the nine tiny Pacific islands that make up Tuvalu.

The group of atolls and reefs is on average barely two metres above sea level. The United Nations climate panel estimates that oceans will rise by 18-59 centimetres by 2100.

This, along with environmental degradation, could make large parts of Tuvalu uninhabitable.

[...] No one seems to know where the Tuvaluans would go if their islands disappear - something one study said could happen in just 50 years.

Australia has been approached by the islands' authorities, but has not agreed to let the 12,000 islanders resettle there. New Zealand accepts 75 Tuvaluans a year under a regional immigration quota, but has no explicit policy to take in people from Pacific island countries due to climate change.

Tuvalu's plight does not augur well for millions of others - from Africa's Sahel region to Bangladesh in south Asia - who could be forced from their homes by climate change.

"There is a lack of concern about this right now," said Frank Biermann, a professor at Vrije University's Institute for Environmental Studies in Amsterdam.

"A crisis is unlikely to occur before 2030 or 2040. But if we don't want to see people in camps, violence and other nasty consequences, we need to start planning now."

Besides higher sea levels, the UN climate panel warns that rising global temperatures - caused by human activities led by burning fossil fuels - are likely to bring more droughts, flooding and stronger storms.

Experts predict climate change-related stresses - including disasters, food and water shortages and conflicts over scarce resources - could permanently uproot 200 to 250 million people by mid-century.

This week, European Union (EU) leaders will be told to prepare for "substantially increased migratory pressure" due to climate change.

A report by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana and the executive European Commission, to be delivered at this week's summit, says people who already suffer from poor health, unemployment or social exclusion will be hit hardest.

That could amplify or trigger mass migration within and between countries, sparking increased conflicts in transit and destination areas, it warns.


(link (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/14/2190148.htm))

Interesting plot for a future dystopia.

Let the men in charge handle it for now. That doesn't mean I'm not worried, I just lack the power and the punch to do something.

The Himalayas would be a safe bet.

well the moons free! :p

Interesting plot for a future dystopia.

Thats what Kevin Costner said, and look how it turned out.

Thats what Kevin Costner said, and look how it turned out.

Well...

I won't comment further. You pwned me.

And it's not just Tuvalu. Increased floods, droughts and other environmental disasters seem likely to force millions of people to flee from Third World countries during our generation.


Bangladesh (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602582.html), as just another current-day example.

Thats what Kevin Costner said, and look how it turned out.

That was best forgotten. Did you have to remind us? :p

Bangladesh (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602582.html), as just another current-day example.

Yes, the article mentions Bangladesh, but thanks for the more detailed one.

I think the countries which have emitted most greenhouse gases would be the most logical option. Of course you should take the population density, economy and culture etc of those countries into account. But:
- They contributed most to this, so it seems pretty fair.
- They (most of the time) are best of, the broadest shoulders should carry the largest burden.
- Due to low birth rates in those developed countries they might be in need of fresh immigrants.


Not that this will ever happen. Which politician will destroy his political future for people in the third world? And who wants somebody from those countries affected as his neighbor? No, we'll probably donate some money to charity or go to life-8 concerts but ignore the real problems and structural solutions to them.

climate refugees have existed for decades and so far they have just been crammed into slums with nobody noticing

why would the future be any different? :p

http://lolthenews.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/_11.jpg

Somewhere nearby that won't kill them would be nice. Or America.

The lawns of the top polluters. Give 'em signs.

Somewhere nearby that won't kill them would be nice. Or America.

The problem is that most people affected will be from third world countries. Their neighbors will probably also be poor and affected by climate change. Because of this they will probably be less able to provide enough food, control diseases, provide jobs etc.
On the other hand, the third world countries of today will probably be much more prosperous over fifty years, so it might not be such a big problem.

Space Colonies?

Or we could let them die...but then the LIBERAL Media labels you as "cruel" and "heartless" and "evil"...damn Liberals...On a Serious note, IMO the sad thing is that most refugees will probably just be told to GTFO of wherever they do go...

Space Colonies?

what about space climate change!

was you thinking the next generation of human transport won't screw us over?

IMO the sad thing is that most refugees will probably just be told to GTFO of wherever they do go...

and then we get to have a good old fashion race riot :)

This is a question rarely raised. When some countries become uninhabitable in a few decades, and the population has to be evacuated, where should they be resettled? They'll have to go somewhere - i.e., be resettled in another country. So where exactly should they go?

I recommend somewhere mountainous. Seriously, though. With the glaring example of islands that will cease to exist, this issue is ignored because the answer seems obvious to most people: move inland to higher ground, away from the flood water. Whether that's a viable option is another question, but most people look at it and say, "MOVE!"

(That said, I think staying in a flood-prone region because of some sense of "history" is idiotic. Just like the people in Malibu hills who build their houses in fire-prone areas, then act shocked when the house catches fire. They rebuild, then act shocked again when the rain comes and washes their house down the hill in a mudslide because the fire destroyed the vegetation. Then they take the insurance money and rebuild in the same fucking location! Time to move, already!!! /rant)

Thats what Kevin Costner said, and look how it turned out.
Yes, it produced a very underrated movie.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the theory that there is no such thing as global climate change, and so these so-called refugees are in fact probably just more damn furreners who want welfare checks so they can steal our jobs and destroy America by peddling their Islamic religion.

I mean usually there's someone who has to say the dumbest thing imaginable; it's something about the word "climate" itself, it attracts them and compels them to just start blurting out idiocies.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the theory that there is no such thing as global climate change, and so these so-called refugees are in fact probably just more damn furreners who want welfare checks so they can steal our jobs and destroy America by peddling their Islamic religion.

I mean usually there's someone who has to say the dumbest thing imaginable; it's something about the word "climate" itself, it attracts them and compels them to just start blurting out idiocies.

Meh, they're probably taking naps or playing Halo or something right now. Just enjoy the peace while it's still here. ;)

I don't see that the first world is under any obligation to accept refugees at all.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the theory that there is no such thing as global climate change, and so these so-called refugees are in fact probably just more damn furreners who want welfare checks so they can steal our jobs and destroy America by peddling their Islamic religion.

I mean usually there's someone who has to say the dumbest thing imaginable; it's something about the word "climate" itself, it attracts them and compels them to just start blurting out idiocies.
A recent survey of Geologists and Geophysicists in Alberta (done by APEGGA, the Alberta Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists Assocation) found that 68% percent of respondents don't consider the science behind climate change settled.

How's that? A survey of scientists showed that those scientists don't trust popular climate science.

I don't see that the first world is under any obligation to accept refugees at all.

True, no one is obligated to be morally decent or economically sensible. But what goes around comes around; it's all good and well to take a big dump on immigrants and refugees until one day something unexpected happens and you become the shittee instead of the shitter. Then, as you watch fat people partying on the shore, and they force your leaky boat away so you and your entire family and people have to risk the open ocean again and hope that perhaps, somewhere, there are actual human beings, you might wind up changing your attitude on the subject.

I for one predict refugee status will become exceptionally popular in upcoming decades. Now not just for dark-skinned immigrants!

How's that? A survey of scientists showed that those scientists don't trust popular climate science.

This has what to do with anything?

I don't see that the first world is under any obligation to accept refugees at all.

Do you believe obligations, even in general, exist?

This has what to do with anything?
You complained no one had questioned the science, so I let some scientists do it for me.

Do you believe obligations, even in general, exist?
Only voluntary obligations.

You complained no one had questioned the science, so I let some scientists do it for me.

I didn't complain that no one had "questioned the science." I merely mentioned some surprise because no one had rampaged into this thread (yet!) with the head-in-the-sand defense, or intermingled it with a paranoid fear of foreign immigration, or for that matter ranting about liberals and Al Gore and the great global conspiracy to increase taxation by concocting a global warming myth.

Only voluntary obligations.

This makes little sense to me. If I understand what you mean by voluntary that means that if an obligation is voluntary, it ceases to be an obligation. Can you give an example of a voluntary and non voluntary obligation?

I didn't complain that no one had "questioned the science." I merely mentioned some surprise because no one had rampaged into this thread (yet!) with the head-in-the-sand defense, or intermingled it with a paranoid fear of foreign immigration, or for that matter ranting about liberals and Al Gore and the great global conspiracy to increase taxation by concocting a global warming myth.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever post anything like that in NSG, I've only seen people complain about how all these sorts of people come into these threads.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever post anything like that in NSG

Stick around.

If not I'll be pleasantly surprised.

, I've only seen people complain about how all these sorts of people come into these threads.

Really? I haven't seen even one person complain about that.

head-in-the-sand defense, . Sorry but Questioning the science over global warming is just sensible, and though gobal warming is likely to be happening, i would still like to see more evidence as to the causes of it

The problem is that most people affected will be from third world countries. Their neighbors will probably also be poor and affected by climate change. Because of this they will probably be less able to provide enough food, control diseases, provide jobs etc.
On the other hand, the third world countries of today will probably be much more prosperous over fifty years, so it might not be such a big problem.


What ever happened to the "survival of the fittest?"












It is a joke people.

Really? I haven't seen even one person complain about that.

You are...

climate refugees have existed for decades and so far they have just been crammed into slums with nobody noticing

why would the future be any different? :p


I agree, but then 12,000 of them
that much asswipe will surely clog up any country's toilet


[QUOTE=Marrakech II;13527136]What ever happened to the "survival of the fittest?"

It went away when democracy said "lets spend taxpayers dollars to keep the weak on welfare so they will vote for us"

This makes little sense to me. If I understand what you mean by voluntary that means that if an obligation is voluntary, it ceases to be an obligation. Can you give an example of a voluntary and non voluntary obligation?
I can only be obligated to do something if I've previously agreed that under these circumstances I will be so bound.

So, if I entered into a trade agreement with some low-lying nation with the provision that I was required to accept refugees from there should the nation become uninhabitable, then I'd be obligated to accept those refugees when they arrive.

But if the refugees arrived without any prior consent on my part, I wouldn't be obligated to let them in.

I didn't complain that no one had "questioned the science." I merely mentioned some surprise because no one had rampaged into this thread (yet!) with the head-in-the-sand defense, or intermingled it with a paranoid fear of foreign immigration, or for that matter ranting about liberals and Al Gore and the great global conspiracy to increase taxation by concocting a global warming myth.
This isn't the right sort of thread for that. Dealing with possible refugees doesn't really raise the question of whether the warming is taking place or what's causing it or what we might be able to do about it. If the thread dealt specifically with carbon emissions I'm sure you'd get a more vocal opposition on scientific grounds.

I don't see that the first world is under any obligation to accept refugees at all.

I don't believe anyone was suggesting they were. At least not seriously. In any case, they have to go somewhere. If not the first world then where?

A recent survey of Geologists and Geophysicists in Alberta (done by APEGGA, the Alberta Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists Assocation) found that 68% percent of respondents don't consider the science behind climate change settled.

How's that? A survey of scientists showed that those scientists don't trust popular climate science.

Got a link? Oh no, don't bother, I found it myself.
http://www.apegga.com/Environment/reports/ClimateChangesurveyreport.pdf
Anyway:

Well shit, a survey of Albertan oil engineers, geologists and geophysicists found that they don't consider the science behind climate change settled? Now there's a surprise.

You know. That's a very interesting report, and not for the reason you described. I'll first address the question you referred to: 'The debate on the scientific causes of climate change is settled [agree or disagree]'. Thats a very leading question, especially to a scientist. What do they mean by settled? The debate isn't settled, in the sense that, oh i don't know, the debate regarding the shape of DNA is settled. It is one of the most fluid and fast changing areas in science today. I wouldn't say the debate is settled, and I'm firmly in the anthropogenic camp.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Anabasis/untitled.jpg

Looking further, the first bar of that chart is based on question 3.f of the survey, and section 3 comprises the questions used to create the chart. They have arranged the chart in such a way as to present the questions with the most negative result first, which leads me to question why they wanted to emphasise that particular first result. The other questions in the chart interestingly confirm that, while Alberta's Geoscientists are allowed to conduct their research scientifically, they feel that the corporations they work for aren't interested in their science, more so the bottom line. All the questions in the chart pertaining to climate change could be answered by somebody firmly in the anthropogenic camp, while still answering in a manner that at first appears to be 'anti-anthropgenic'. I'd also like to point out this bit:
I feel pressured by my peers to take a certain stance on climate
change, which conflicts with my personal views. 68% disagree. Yay independence of science!

Moving on, the most interesting part of the while survey is section one.
Virtually all respondents (99.4%) agree that the climate is changing. There is also general agreement that the climate is changing both regionally and globally (78.7% agree) and that it may result in both warming and cooling (83.0% agree).

There is less agreement as to the magnitude of the change: 65.7% believe that there are changes to both the average and variability of the climate, 20.2% believe that there are changes to the average state, and 14.1% believe that there are changes to the variability.

There is also disagreement as to the timescale: 55.3% believe that there are both long and short term effects, 28.8% believe there are long term effects, and 11.6% believe that there are short term effects.

There is even less agreement as to the cause: 27.4% believe it is caused by primarily natural factors (natural variation, volcanoes, sunspots, lithosphere motions, etc.), 25.7% believe it is caused by primarily human factors (burning fossil fuels, changing land use, enhanced water evaporation due to irrigation), and 45.2% believe that climate change is caused by both human and natural factors.

So. Albertan geoscientists accept the climate is changing globally (change meaning warming and cooling). Great, they'd be blind not to.
A majority believe that the average and variability is changing.
A majority believe that we will be affected in either the short and long term, or just long term. Very few people that there are only short term effects. Again, great.

Ok, causes. Over a quarter feel that it is a natural phenomenon. Fair enough - thats a high proportion, but we're surveying Albertan oil engineers here. A slightly unrepresentative sample of the global scientific consensus, non? We still have 70% of them that believe that we are changing the global climate. Now, take into account the fact that scientists are pedantic buggers. Is the climate changing due to both human and natural factors? Undeniably yes. Does this mean that the human factor is therefore small and ignorable? Not at all. You can answer that question with natural causes as a factor, and still believe that we're fucking up the global climate.

So, in conclusion, Llewdor. Your article does say that Albertan oil engineers who are not climate scientists do not feel that the science is settled. Fair enough. A majority of your oil engineers also feel we are changing the climate, and a majority feels we will see both short and long term effects. Furthermore, a majority feels that they are not pressured by other scientists to conform to scientific consensus, contrary to claims made by some more 'exiteable' posters here (not you, Llewdor).

I do not think that article means what you think it means.

Why not Siberia and Canada? Unfortunately that is not a rhetorical question.

Why not Siberia and Canada? Unfortunately that is not a rhetorical question.

I'd like to go to Canada. Probably quite a nice place. Then i could become a lumberjack! sings monty python version of "I'm a lumberjack and i'm okay".

I can only be obligated to do something if I've previously agreed that under these circumstances I will be so bound.

So, if I entered into a trade agreement with some low-lying nation with the provision that I was required to accept refugees from there should the nation become uninhabitable, then I'd be obligated to accept those refugees when they arrive.

But if the refugees arrived without any prior consent on my part, I wouldn't be obligated to let them in.

So basically, you only believe in legal, and not moral obligations. So your original post was a bit meaningless no? Since not everyone shares your premise that moral obligations don't, or at least shouldn't exist.

You are...

Oddly enough, my observations do not become "complaining" simply because you declare them to be.

This isn't the right sort of thread for that. Dealing with possible refugees doesn't really raise the question of whether the warming is taking place or what's causing it or what we might be able to do about it.

The "possible" status of refugees would seem to be crucial on this point. If there is no global climate change, as some claim, then there won't be refugees at all. But if there is, the same folks who would "question" (that's a nice euphemism) the science would also most likely have a palpable fear of immigrants and foreigners.

The dinghy shop, obviously.

The mansions of oil barons and car manufacturers.

On this same topic, President Anote Tong of Kiribati has been wondering where all his people will be able to go once the country becomes uninhabitable (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGTb9OB17xc).

On this same topic, President Anote Tong of Kiribati has been wondering where all his people will be able to go once the country becomes uninhabitable (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGTb9OB17xc).
I've no idea, but don't expect any of the major CO2 emitters to welcome them.

So, in conclusion, Llewdor. Your article does say that Albertan oil engineers who are not climate scientists do not feel that the science is settled. Fair enough. A majority of your oil engineers also feel we are changing the climate, and a majority feels we will see both short and long term effects. Furthermore, a majority feels that they are not pressured by other scientists to conform to scientific consensus, contrary to claims made by some more 'exiteable' posters here (not you, Llewdor).

I do not think that article means what you think it means.
First of all, I'm also terribly pedantic, and I generally expect that level of pedantry from everyone I meet (and am generally disappointed). As such, that these people are answering survey questions in a pedantic manner is a good thing in my eyes.

Now, to your objection. I think this says exactly what I think it says. When surveys are done of the public at large, the vast majority of laypeople DO think the science behind climate science is settled. Given that they believe that, they're willing to devote incredible resources to fixing a problem where they believe there's no question about what's happening, why, and how to fix it. But the science isn't settled, that willingness is misplaced.

I want people to realise that the science isn't settled. Spending billions to enact a solution that might not work the way you think strikes me as a terrible idea.