Migrant watch (merged topic)

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:12 pm

New thread started to track migrants to the 1st world.

I'll start this off:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... rries.html

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 11:17 pm

Not a good situation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33257415[url][/url]

Post by **adam2** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:43 am

Reasoned arguments, factual reports, and differences of opinion are fine, as are forecasts of likely future events and the consequences thereof. Please stay reasonably polite and avoid personal insults. If this thread degenerates into name calling and insults, then it is liable to be locked or deleted.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:54 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Rather than leaving vast numbers of victims of a warmer world stranded, without any place allowing them in, industrialized countries ought to pledge to take on a share of the displaced population equal to how much each nation has historically contributed to emissions of the greenhouse gases that are causing this crisis. According to the World Resources Institute, between 1850 and 2011, the United States was the source of 27 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions; the European Union, 25 percent; China, 11 percent; Russia, 8 percent; and Japan, 4 percent.

Mark · Post by **Mark** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 4:08 pm

biffvernon wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

Rather than leaving vast numbers of victims of a warmer world stranded, without any place allowing them in, industrialized countries ought to pledge to take on a share of the displaced population equal to how much each nation has historically contributed to emissions of the greenhouse gases that are causing this crisis. According to the World Resources Institute, between 1850 and 2011, the United States was the source of 27 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions; the European Union, 25 percent; China, 11 percent; Russia, 8 percent; and Japan, 4 percent.

Biff, you can't seriously be advocating this ?

Point 1: These people are displaced for a whole range of reasons - I suspect the vast majority are either as result of armed conflict or are trying to better themselves economically. A lesser number will be 'victims of a warmer world', although that might change.....

Point 2: Once these people are here, they'll then become part of the problem... When they get settled and are more economically active, they'll want to travel home and/or bring their families (more CO2). Surely better to invest the time/energy/resources into trying to stabilise the countries that they're fleeing from.....

Point 3: Where are we going to put them - any offers Biff ?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 6:15 pm

I didn't express an opinion. I just posted a link to an article in The Washington Post. Read it. It's mostly talking about stuff in the future but I guess the issues need to be thought about asap.

Post by **clv101** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:50 pm

Mark wrote: Point 3: Where are we going to put them - any offers Biff ?

Maybe Russia and Canada could accommodate a couple hundred million more, gradually, over the coming century.

Fundamentally this problem is intractable though, if we're on target for 4-6C warning with other resource constraints then somethings got to give. Folk are likely to perrish in situ, on the move or at their final destination that can't accommodate them. Is it worth debating where?

The European migration problem is interesting as it was wholly predictable and expected... and yet no one has a workable solution. This issue alone could take us out of EU if it continues to escalate. Another 5 years the Channel will could be like the Med.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 12:59 am

It will end with guns at borders. I am not saying that is right. F--k me, there is a lot that is not right in this broken world. But, that is how it will end.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:25 am

Which is why we need constructive dialogue now, remaining mindful of adam2's post near the top of this discussion. From my position, guns are not part of the solution.

I was talking to some friends just returned from northern California. They hired motorbikes and drove vast distances. They said their overwhelming impression was that here was a land almost empty of people.

Post by **clv101** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 8:58 pm

biffvernon wrote:They said their overwhelming impression was that here was a land almost empty of people.

Hence my comment about Canada and Russia behind able to accommodate far more people - technically. Technically is easy, politically hard.

As for the UK, we absolutely can't support the current 64 million people without large imports, but we could support twice that many with associated increases in food, energy etc imports.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:12 pm

We are now clearly in the early stages of the Long-Emergency where global conflicts and the attendant disruptions to global supply chains will be an inevitable consequence.

And this is the time when we should be contemplating putting ourselves in position of relying on those supply chains even more?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 9:15 pm

biffvernon wrote:Which is why we need constructive dialogue now, remaining mindful of adam2's post near the top of this discussion. From my position, guns are not part of the solution.

I was talking to some friends just returned from northern California. They hired motorbikes and drove vast distances. They said their overwhelming impression was that here was a land almost empty of people.

I didn't say guns at borders are any kind of solution we would want in an ideal world. I am saying that they are an inevitability in the REAL world. You know...that thing we keep banging on about Biff.

Post by **clv101** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 10:52 pm

Little John wrote:We are now clearly in the early stages of the Long-Emergency where global conflicts and the attendant disruptions to global supply chains will be an inevitable consequence.

And this is the time when we should be contemplating putting ourselves in position of relying on those supply chains even more?

Yeah, the Long Emergency is a good term. I don't think we should be further concentrating people and locking in reliance on increased imports. Areas already dependent on imports for basic needs shouldn't increase their populations. Folk should be able to meet their basic needs from their local-ish environment.

But the question remains what to do with millions of people who find themselves unable to meet their basic needs? Move them elsewhere, export stuff to them where they are or let them perrish - maybe a mix of all three?

Little John · Post by **Little John** » Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:07 pm

God knows. It's too late to be able to provide any kind of positive answer. The time for that was about 40 years ago. 20 years at most. Now, all that is left is the need for every community, every nation to make sure its own house is in order and then, resources permitting, seek to help out other communities, other nations when and where possible.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 6:12 am

California is largely empty of people because it's largely empty of water. It's a desert state reliant on imported water from the Rockies, a source that is running dry. there are other places in the US that could take large numbers of people though.

A large proportion of the migrants are fleeing from the civil war going on in the Middle East between Sunni and Shia Moslems. Some may say that we started that by removing the despots who held the countries together by their tyranny but others might say that they would have fallen apart anyway as Syria has.

Another proportion are fleeing countries which have civil wars driven by factions fighting to control, for their own corrupt purposes, what meagre resources those countries have. Another proportion are fleeing countries where there are despots who are terrorising portions of the population who are not liked for varying reasons. These are genuine asylum seekers but should we offer them asylum or intervene in the government of those countries and risk their disintegration as in Iraq?

A large proportion are just economic migrant moving from sub Saharan countries such as Nigeria in the hope of earning a better living in Europe, or the UK, and sending money back home. These people are paying thousands of dollars each to people traffickers, so are hardly poor in the first place, to flock to places where the streets are "paved with gold". It could be argued that if they used the money to invest in their own countries those countries would be better, more affluent places.

But then there is the endemic corruption in sub Saharan Africa which is holding them back. So again should we intervene in those countries? Africa is largely a basket case caused by educated Africans themselves! If you compare the affluence of former Asian members of the British empire with former African ones the difference is stark. The Asian countries are far more affluent by a large margin because their governance has been much better, less corrupt, since independence.

All this is before CC/GW really takes hold. Even government sources are now saying that if we don't change course soon the whole bloody system will collapse by 2040. The report points to the fact that if we don't share the world's wealth more equitably as well as doing something positive about CC/GW we are all stuffed. No wonder the report has been parked although possibly too many people now know where it has been parked for it not to be noticed. And now the Pope has jumped onto the wagon as well.