Refugees and Climate Change - a Question

According to the UN refugee agency:

Around 60% of the world’s 114 million refugees and people internally displaced by conflict are in countries on the front lines of the climate crisis, exacerbating the protection needs and risks for displaced people and contributing to new, onward, and protracted displacement. The effects of climate change, like extreme weather events, are hugely detrimental and increase the vulnerability of refugees and displaced people.
​

https://www.unrefugees.org.uk/where...world's,, onward, and protracted displacement.

​

There is clear evidence that extreme weather and drought is driving conflicts in countries which creates more refugees. For many of them staying in nearby countries, equally affected by climate change, is not a long term solution for them and their families. It's no wonder that so many want to travel as far as they do to western Europe, to countries with stable climates and facilities to combat climate change such as flood defences.

As someone who has studied and worked on conservation for over a decade, I like to think the climate change crisis is accepted to some extent by most people in this country by now. Right?

And, as shown above, there is significant evidence that global climate change is driving the refugee crisis which is leading to the increase in asylum seekers many in this country are concerned about... Noticeable in the significant proportion of this country that voted for Reform UK Ltd in our recent election, and their anti-immigration policy.

That begs a serious question though... Why in the blue hell is Reform's leader speaking at a dinner hosted by notorious climate change denial think-tank The Heartland Institute?

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...t-to-us-in-two-months-since-elected-reform-mp

It's almost like it's best for his business to keep the refugees coming.

 

I remember the headlines of the the papers in the 1960s saying that scientists predict by the year 2000 Doncaster would be by the sea. Well it's not it's still at Filey,so we cannot always believe what the scientists say, then or today. But something not quite right.

 

It is the newspapers you should not believe, but instead read what reputable scientists actually say and make up your own mind.

 

There are roughly 3 million people in the UK that live in areas under threat of being reclaimed by the sea - particularly Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfork, North Wales and other low-lying areas. It could get very unpleasant for them - coincidentally, they are the among the ones most likely to vote for parties that support continued fossil fuel use and don't want to support those affected by climate change...

 

Yep that's the crux of it.

Quite an irony that they are worried about refugees moving into their areas when their areas are exactly what many refugees are trying to get away from

 

As i posted previously, one of the big US oil companies commissioned a report on the long term effects of burning fossil fuels in the 70s which cited global warming due to carbon dioxide as the likely result. They suppressed it. We know that co2 causes heating, otherwise Venus would have similar surface temperatures to the Earth not hot enough to melt lead....

The science is simple, molecules like co2 absorb radiated energy (light) and this raises the molecules to higher energy states, producing heat in order to return to a lower energy state. O level Chemistry (when i did it in 1972) not exactly cutting edge science.

 

Yes correct but at the time the scientist were wrong, Doncaster isn't by the sea , even today they are wrong.

 

Sea levels haven't risen to that extent yet, but they are rising. Many low lying islands will disappear. In 2015 I lived near Scunny and cycled down a road near the river Trent where the people were campaigning against wind farms. The cycling app on my phone told me they were living 15 feet below sea level. Turkeys and Christmas came to mind.

 

Not to mention the huge investment in flood defences we have seen in this country

 

They aren't wrong..you not understanding climate models is not them being wrong. There are best case and worst case scenarios depending on a huge numbers of global factors. However global sea and air temperatures have been rising rapidly for decades and we have a great deal of historical evidence that when this happened in the past, eventually, there were huge rises in sea levels.

 

Even if you think climate change is horseshit, it would still make sense to buy into clean energy for energy security purposes and none of us want to live in a craphole.

 

The poor of China are more bothered where there next meal is coming from. This is true for many countries around the world.
Nothing will change any time soon. Moat people don't care about the environment, not in the abstract at least. They care about there own habitat.
I believe the reality is we will continue to pump Co2 into the atmosphere and our decendants will have to adapt to the world that we leave.
I mean we still have people killing each other over religion and pointless bits of land. It's pure hubris to think we will have the political corporation to stop global warming.

 

China invest the same amount per capita in clean energy as Europe.. and notable produce more per capita than the UK.

Every country in the world needs to change for it to work. Trump-esque, whataboutism is is the real problem with getting this to work.

 

And pump out how much CO2?
The ecosystem doesn't care about per capita.
It's not whataboutism or anything to do with the Orange one.
The political will and international cooperation required does not exist.
Even in this country. The energy price cap ahas just shot up again ready for winter.
A huge percentage of people would happily vote for burning some fossil fuel to reduce it. I'm not saying thay actually would reduce it btw. I'm just saying it's not a driver for most people, they genuinely don't care.
Essentially we've made no progress as emissions have continued to increase. So in real terms nothing has been achieved. So that suggests we will continue on the path we are on.

 

Per capita, way less than countries like the US, Canada and Australia.. and declining all the time. China are doing way more than most to combat climate change. The lack of international cooperation comes from the middle east and from much if the west.

Whataboutism is exactly what it is. "others aren't doing it so why should we?"

International cooperation has to start somewhere. The best we can do is set a good example and lead. That's exactly what a country of our status and influence should be doing.

 

My view is nothing has changed in real terms and nothing will for a long time yet.
Maybe I'm just cynical.

And Per capita is irrelevant.

 

My new word for today whataboutism

 

Yes, quite impressive where they were, there was a road next to the river, but you couldn't see the river because there was a massive bank. The road was 15 feet below the river (it's tidal down to Newark) and the bank rose a good 10 feet higher than the river. I don't think I'd be keen on living there...

 

I'm not sure cynical will help move things forwards.

But I get where you're coming from. We need to try though. I'd like to be able to look my kids in the eyes and say we tried even if we fail.

 

I take your point on trying to lead the way really I do.
However the reality is the future of the environment is going be decided by Asia and Latin America. Largely influenced by poor people who are poor and don't care about saving the environment, they don't care because they are poor. Trying to fix global warming is, in my view not achievable while so many people live is abject poverty.
India has tens of millions of people starving. So what the priority for these people? These countries?
Would you be happy for child to risk death by associated illness of malnutrition to stop global warming? I wouldn't.
Now I appreciate it's not one or the other. I just feel that while everyone sits around patting themselves on the back for buying and electric car or have a coke through a paper straw we are in denial.
Hopefully we can lead the way in technology and discovery of not just making clean energy but making it affordable. Because ultimately the economics are going to be the main drivers.