20 Million People Will Be Displaced By Climate Change In Next 2 Decades
27 replies, posted
Estimates are between 12 and 200 million, 20 million is most likely at this time. Another massive refugee crisis will likely lead to further nationalist and ethnic tensions, causing ever greater reaction against proposals to fix climate change, causing more climate change and more refugees and so on.
Good news is antartica will be so warm that we can all move there.
You lose some you win some eh?
The end of the world will be so retarded.
Maybe in 200 years if we keep going the way we're going, not 20 years.
Although parts of Antarctica are becoming greener already:
Global warming is making Antarctica green again, and it's stunni..
Hey maybe this wouldn't be as much of an issue if people weren't overpopulating the planet so much?
Overpopulation is the cause of this though. Having a child is the biggest carbon footprint thing you can do.
This scene comes to mind..
Fuck yes. Somebody else watches Utopia. It's one of my favourite shows.
Everytime this discussion comes up, people gloss over the fact that most of the developed world is already in population decline while Africa, China and India just keep on fucking with no care for the results.
"But buh resource disparity!"
Well, it doesn't fucking matter if one Norwegian uses as many resources as a chinese when there are 10k more chinese than Norwegians. Don't even get me started on the disparity of space per capita in the developed countries and the developing countries.
It's really not the west that has the population problem and our footprint problem isn't gonna be fixed by voluntarily getting sterilized. It's getting solved by transitioning to sustainable energy. A sterilization stipend is gonna fuck us over so hard in the long run by comparison. It's such a short-sighted brainfart.
What about livestock?
A single person in the developing world don't have anywhere near the carbon footprint of a single person in the developed world.
Developing countries make only 60% of the carbon despite having 84% of the world's population.
Another way of putting it, China makes the largest share of pollution as an entire country but the average per capita pollution of a single Chinese person 4.58 million metric tonnes while the average American produces 19.78.
The fact is that the only reason that China pollutes more is that they have a larger population. You could arbitrarily group people together in any way you want and argue that said group pollutes more based purely on the fact that they are a larger body of people.
I do not believe solid answers will ever come when even the questions themselves are fluid, as are the words used to pose those questions, as are the meanings of those very words used.
There will be no grand answer, no messianic realization as to what people must do with their lives that would be so unyielding as to not be easily interchangeable with any other meaning for this life of theirs. There is not an answer to the question "why even bother at all" that does not depend on the individual in question's personal reasons and values and wants. That being as it may, there is no way to convince either others or oneself of a course of action that will somehow override this ever-existing and ever-sustained temptation to merely consume and live one's life to the fullest, all else be damned. There is no, nor can there be, absolute meaning or absolute goal to attain that would not vary between people, and which could be used to somehow direct us onto a more agreeable collective course.
Whether this mindset is the result of the human condition (the very structure of the human psyche in all contexts), or merely society itself as it exists with all the technological, religious and social relations that constitute it (the human psyche in this particular context of social organization) is entirely irrelevant when it comes to alleviating the fears of people seeing where things are going, and indeed where things have been going from the beginning of this sordid affair we call civilization.
You are entirely correct, we should all be afraid, for there is no visible escape from this speeding train that has long gone off the rails and is going forward in total darkness.
Optimism is a rare resource these days, and it is becoming increasingly likely that even this optimism is misguided.
That's speculative since the act of reproducing doesn't have a carbon footprint by itself. To come up with solutions to our consumption we need to look far deeper than that.
I don't know why you're writing this out and who was stupid enough to give you a coin for it when i literally addressed this in my post. you read one line and immediately lapsed into lecture mode.
All of the date you present is absolutely true. It doesn't mean it's the be all and end all of this argument. You literally went and got stuck on population control right after i lamented that it's always the first and last stop in this conversation.
Did you read ANY of my post or did you just want to farm ratings?
I wasn't talking about population control, I was just correcting one part of the argument you were making.
Perhaps before you flip out at people for not reading your posts, you should make sure you are reading their posts correctly.
Their population growth will decline like the rest of the world as they become developed, maybe we should try that
Sustainable and clean energy and consumption, while nice to imagine, won't happen for a while because making these changes under capitalism is met with great resistance. I mean, we have lobbyists for coal and mass transit proposals get shot down the same way. Energy too. All these things have solutions already.
There's really nothing to be done at this point, we can barely even deal with war refugees without everyone getting on the fascist train. Basically, welcome to hellworld.
Another factor to consider is that due to the way urban populations grow, the population growth in developing countries will eventually stagnate in the same way it has in developing countries. The best way to halt population growth in developing countries is to improve the living conditions, access to contraceptives, women's rights and social liberties of people in developing countries to the extent that there is no longer any reason to have so many children. However, we also need to develop practices that reduce carbon emissions in 1st world countries so that when the developing countries inevitably follow our lead they will also be able to adopt those sustainable practices.
This might not be as big of a deal in the short term if it wasn't for places like America coming off as so xenophobic.
It's kinda funny that most (or all?) anti-refugee parties have terrible climate policies.
Hahaha, climate change is just a myth, let's make laws that pump out pollution into the air, don't matter, hahaha, also immigrants sucks. Oh no, why the fuck are there more immigrants coming over here?
And so adverse to actually doing fuck-all in terms of climate change. Everyone else is working their ass off.
Kinda off topic, but I'm 90% sure this is Whiterun (Breezehome):
Am I crazy?
First result on google
Yes? And there's billions of people on the planet, most of which have come about in the last 100 years which has just made the problem worse. And since a lot of those nations are still developing, their impact the environment will also become much greater in the future.
(Also I don't see why my original post was rated dumb? Am I missing something?)
I recall reading an article a while back that predicted that due to climate change, the Middle East will become so hot that it will become unlivable, thus sparking a refugee crisis. Now according this site the total population of the Middle East in 254 million. If every person were to leave they will go to places where it is colder. Europe is the obvious place though due to the amount of refugees they will go to places like the Americas and Asia.
Such a large exodus of people will be disastrous. Not only will this act will inflame nationalist and ethnocentric rhetoric, but it would perhaps be the worst humanitarian crisis in all of history. Hell, this is assuming that a large portion of the population leave. Some will stay out of stubbornness and others won't be able to leave at all due to their financial status. They will die.
Climate change needs to be to the number one priority for all of humanity.
20mil seems like a lowball figure thb
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.