PDA

View Full Version : Religion What happened to the climate refugees?


chiefsnorth
04-17-2011, 10:18 AM
http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/

What happened to the climate refugees?


In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.

It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Let’s have a look at the evidence:

Bahamas:

Nassau, The Bahamas – The 2010 national statistics recorded that the population growth increased to 353,658 persons in The Bahamas. *The population change figure increased by 50,047 persons during the last 10 years.

St Lucia:

The island-nation of Saint Lucia recorded an overall household population increase of 5 percent from May 2001 to May 2010 based on estimates derived from a complete enumeration of the population of Saint Lucia during the conduct of the recently completed 2010 Population and Housing Census.

Seychelles:

Population 2002, 81755
Population 2010, 88311

Solomon Islands:

The latest Solomon Islands population has surpassed half a million – that’s according to the latest census results.

It’s been a decade since the last census report, and in that time the population has leaped 100-thousand.


Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees.

Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.

More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with interest.

However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.

(Footnote: As requested, credit goes to the cartographer of the UNEP map, Emmanuelle Bournay.)

chiefsnorth
04-17-2011, 10:19 AM
This blog chronicles the UN attempts to take the page down after it started to get media attention

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears-50-million-climate-refugees-then-botches-the-disappearing-attempt/

chiefsnorth
04-17-2011, 10:22 AM
The world in 2010:

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/storage/11kap9climat.png

alnorth
04-17-2011, 11:05 AM
Obviously people were hysterical a few years ago.

I'm in the Bjorn Lomborg school of thought which basically says both Al Gore and the "nothing is happening at all" people are wrong. Man-made global warming is real, but the consequences are far less dire than what some have predicted. Eventually it will be a serious problem, but even 100 years from now we'll barely notice.

So, since it is not a crisis that has to be solved immediately with green energy that is a lot more expensive than fossil fuels, then the governments should focus more on funding research and development to figure out ways to make solar panels and other energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels. Accomplish that, and the world will switch virtually overnight, not because they care about the environment, but because they will save money.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JWLXBpousUI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

notorious
04-17-2011, 11:09 AM
So, since it is not a crisis that has to be solved immediately with green energy that is a lot more expensive than fossil fuels, then the governments should focus more on funding research and development to figure out ways to make solar panels and other energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels. Accomplish that, and the world will switch virtually overnight, not because they care about the environment, but because they will save money.





Excellent post.

Saul Good
04-17-2011, 11:31 AM
Obviously people were hysterical a few years ago.

I'm in the Bjorn Lomborg school of thought which basically says both Al Gore and the "nothing is happening at all" people are wrong. Man-made global warming is real, but the consequences are far less dire than what some have predicted. Eventually it will be a serious problem, but even 100 years from now we'll barely notice.

So, since it is not a crisis that has to be solved immediately with green energy that is a lot more expensive than fossil fuels, then the governments should focus more on funding research and development to figure out ways to make solar panels and other energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels. Accomplish that, and the world will switch virtually overnight, not because they care about the environment, but because they will save money.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JWLXBpousUI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This seems like common sense, but the truth is that this isn't about the climate. It's about money and power.

chiefsnorth
04-17-2011, 11:54 AM
So, since it is not a crisis that has to be solved immediately with green energy that is a lot more expensive than fossil fuels, then the governments should focus more on funding research and development to figure out ways to make solar panels and other energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels. Accomplish that, and the world will switch virtually overnight, not because they care about the environment, but because they will save money.


What? How is government supposed to tax that?

<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/HlTxGHn4sH4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/HlTxGHn4sH4?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 03:52 PM
So, since it is not a crisis that has to be solved immediately with green energy that is a lot more expensive than fossil fuels, then the governments should focus more on funding research and development to figure out ways to make solar panels and other energy sources cheaper than fossil fuels. Accomplish that, and the world will switch virtually overnight, not because they care about the environment, but because they will save money.

I absolutely oppose governmental involvement. If it really can be done, there's a shitpot of money in it. If there's really a shitpot of money in it, it will be done.

alnorth
04-17-2011, 04:14 PM
I absolutely oppose governmental involvement. If it really can be done, there's a shitpot of money in it. If there's really a shitpot of money in it, it will be done.

Government involvement = basically giving grants to universities to study this. Obviously private companies are researching this in the hopes of coming up with a patentable breakthrough, but there's nothing wrong with giving money to universities to assist in the research when the payoff is potentially enormous.

I'm not talking about setting up a state-run Government Energy company. Sometimes public money needs to be used to spur research because the risk may appear too high to make a huge investment. Then the breakthrough is made, its released to the public, companies move in to make money on it, we all prosper.

This has been going on forever, and we would not be as technologically advanced as we are without public investment into R&D.

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 04:16 PM
...there's nothing wrong with giving money to universities to assist in the research when the payoff is potentially enormous.

In your opinion. Mine differs. Imagine that.

mikey23545
04-17-2011, 04:22 PM
http://asiancorrespondent.com/52189/what-happened-to-the-climate-refugees/

What happened to the climate refugees?


In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. These people, it was said, would flee a range of disasters including sea level rise, increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production.

The UNEP even provided a handy map. The map shows us the places most at risk including the very sensitive low lying islands of the Pacific and Caribbean.

It so happens that just a few of these islands and other places most at risk have since had censuses, so it should be possible for us now to get some idea of the devastating impact climate change is having on their populations. Letís have a look at the evidence:

Bahamas:

Nassau, The Bahamas Ė The 2010 national statistics recorded that the population growth increased to 353,658 persons in The Bahamas. *The population change figure increased by 50,047 persons during the last 10 years.

St Lucia:

The island-nation of Saint Lucia recorded an overall household population increase of 5 percent from May 2001 to May 2010 based on estimates derived from a complete enumeration of the population of Saint Lucia during the conduct of the recently completed 2010 Population and Housing Census.

Seychelles:

Population 2002, 81755
Population 2010, 88311

Solomon Islands:

The latest Solomon Islands population has surpassed half a million Ė thatís according to the latest census results.

Itís been a decade since the last census report, and in that time the population has leaped 100-thousand.


Meanwhile, far from being places where people are fleeing, no fewer than the top six of the very fastest growing cities in China, Shenzzen, Dongguan, Foshan, Zhuhai, Puning and Jinjiang, are absolutely smack bang within the shaded areas identified as being likely sources of climate refugees.

Similarly, many of the fastest growing cities in the United States also appear within or close to the areas identified by the UNEP as at risk of having climate refugees.

More censuses are due to come in this year, and we await the results for Bangladesh and the Maldives - said to be places most at risk - with interest.

However, a very cursory look at the first available evidence seems to show that the places identified by the UNEP as most at risk of having climate refugees are not only not losing people, they are actually among the fastest growing regions in the world.

(Footnote: As requested, credit goes to the cartographer of the UNEP map, Emmanuelle Bournay.)

Man, that's really weird. I've never heard of the UN being wrong about anything before.

alnorth
04-17-2011, 04:32 PM
In your opinion. Mine differs. Imagine that.

Fortunately, I'm able to read your opinion. Because, you know, the internet exists.

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 04:50 PM
Fortunately, I'm able to read your opinion. Because, you know, the internet exists.

Oh, let's all praise the Governmental Gods that we weren't left to figure that one out without them.

alnorth
04-17-2011, 05:47 PM
Oh, let's all praise the Governmental Gods that we weren't left to figure that one out without them.

Oh I'm sure it or something like it would have been invented eventually. Maybe 5 years or maybe 55 years. Maybe the internet becomes this new wondrous invention when I'm 95 and can't do anything with it, but since the government wasn't involved, thats fine.

I don't think an irresponsibly high amount of money should be granted for stupid research, but I'm fine with investing into R&D to get innovations sooner while I'm alive. Your position strikes me as penny-wise and pound-foolish.

suzzer99
04-17-2011, 06:57 PM
If Microsoft would have invented the internet we'd all be paying a per-byte toll to them, and it would probably look a lot like AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve in the early days. That would kick ass.

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 08:38 PM
Oh I'm sure it or something like it would have been invented eventually. Maybe 5 years or maybe 55 years. Maybe the internet becomes this new wondrous invention when I'm 95 and can't do anything with it, but since the government wasn't involved, thats fine.

I don't think an irresponsibly high amount of money should be granted for stupid research, but I'm fine with investing into R&D to get innovations sooner while I'm alive. Your position strikes me as penny-wise and pound-foolish.

And I can't help but think that yours is penny foolish and pound foolish.

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 08:56 PM
If Microsoft would have invented the internet we'd all be paying a per-byte toll to them, and it would probably look a lot like AOL/Prodigy/Compuserve in the early days. That would kick ass.

If I had my way, we'd sandblast Mt. Rushmore except for Washington, put Bill Gates' mug up there now, start blocking in Tim Tebow and reserve a space for later.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-17-2011, 09:09 PM
Horsecrap from the beginning. We shouldn't worry about real environmental problems like destroying the ecosystem with oil, dispersants or Radiation because there isn't any money in that.

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 09:20 PM
Horsecrap from the beginning. We shouldn't worry about real environmental problems like destroying the ecosystem with oil, dispersants or Radiation because there isn't any money in that.

Tell you what. I'll carve out some time to worry about things that aren't happening next Tuesday.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-17-2011, 09:21 PM
Tell you what. I'll carve out some time to worry about things that aren't happening next Tuesday.

http://guy-sports.com/fun_pictures/ostrich_head_sand2.gif

ClevelandBronco
04-17-2011, 09:26 PM
Whatever you say, clown.

Here. You'll like 'em. They're your size and they're green.

http://img.costumecraze.com/images/vendors/rubies/743GR-Kids-Green-Clown-Shoes-main.jpg

KILLER_CLOWN
04-17-2011, 09:43 PM
Whatever you say, clown.

Here. You'll like 'em. They're your size and they're green.

http://img.costumecraze.com/images/vendors/rubies/743GR-Kids-Green-Clown-Shoes-main.jpg

I'll wear those if you pull your head out.

Radar Chief
04-18-2011, 08:34 AM
If I had my way, we'd sandblast Mt. Rushmore except for Washington, put Bill Gates' mug up there now, start blocking in Tim Tebow and reserve a space for later.

Iím going to enjoy it when you guys start booing him and he runs off the field in tears. :thumb:

Jaric
04-18-2011, 06:34 PM
Iím going to enjoy it when you guys start booing him and he runs off the field in tears. :thumb:

He'll get the last laugh though when God smites whoever comes in to replace him.

tiptap
04-20-2011, 09:17 AM
You all know that Bjorn Lomborg has changed his mind significantly about the immediacy of the the problem of Global Warming and its effect on the world's economy?

ClevelandBronco
04-20-2011, 09:23 AM
What's his position now? All that shit will happen by 2010 after all?

chiefsnorth
04-20-2011, 10:24 AM
You all know that Bjorn Lomborg has changed his mind significantly about the immediacy of the the problem of Global Warming and its effect on the world's economy?

Not since he was on Letterman last week.

KC Dan
04-20-2011, 12:58 PM
You all know that Bjorn Lomborg has changed his mind significantly about the immediacy of the the problem of Global Warming and its effect on the world's economy?So, now he's wrong? Or, was that before? Or, before that? Find out who's paying him and you'll probably figure out his true motives. He should go play tennis. His name is close enough

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2011, 11:40 AM
You all know that Bjorn Lomborg has changed his mind significantly about the immediacy of the the problem of Global Warming and its effect on the world's economy?

Ahhh the funding finally came thru.

mikey23545
04-21-2011, 12:42 PM
You all know that Bjorn Lomborg has changed his mind significantly about the immediacy of the the problem of Global Warming and its effect on the world's economy?

That's what I like about you, tiptap...You're a religious fanatic who refuses to give up no matter how many times the prophecies fail and the flying saucer never comes to pick you up...

LMAO

tiptap
04-23-2011, 10:45 AM
No Bjorn Lomborg position is much closer to mine. He, as I, does not reject the science of the contribution of the GreenHouse Effect in Global Warming. He has, until recently, seen no economic effect for hundreds of years and so no need to act now or with any urgency. He is after all first an Economist not a Climate Scientist. His position represents the most optimistic predicted results of man's contribution to increasing GreenHouse contribution to the energy balance in the climate. And that most optimistic view has shifted in less than 10 years so that now he is stating a much more active pursuit of shifting our energy production away from Carbon Source fuels that are released into the atmosphere. His economic driven position is seeing real effects both in initial costs and in downstream costs. My position has always been more concerned because my understanding came from my scientific understanding. The lag between CO 2 introduction into the atmosphere and the full "filling" of the capacity of CO 2 introduced and the duration of that CO 2 in the atmosphere.