World's first 'climate refugee' faces deportation

[Mark]

http://www.edie.net/news/4/worlds-first ... newsletter


The man who tried to become the world's first climate refugee is set to be deported from New Zealand in the next week. Ioane Teitiota overstayed his visa in New Zealand in 2011 and faced deportation. However, he launched a legal appeal, claiming that his homeland – the Pacific island nation of Kiribati – was threatened by rising sea-levels. Kiribati’s land averages little more than six feet above sea level and is one of the most vulnerable nations in the world to rising sea levels, driven by climate change. Sea levels are expected to rise between 2.5-6.5 feet by the end of the century, putting much of Kiribati underwater. However, Teitiota’s appeals have been rejected throughout the New Zealand judicial system, with the Supreme Court ruling against him in July. Earlier courts called Teitiota’s argument ‘novel but unconvincing’, adding that millions in low-lying countries faced a similar plight.

Teitiota’s argument – and the New Zealand courts' comments – highlight a potential future crisis: mass climate-change-driven migration. According to the World Resources Institute (WRI), climate change is already partly responsible for the flood of refugees emanating from Syria. In a report last month, the WRI wrote: ““Drought and water shortages in Syria likely contributed to the unrest that stoked the country’s 2011 civil war. Dwindling water resources and chronic mismanagement forced 1.5 million people, primarily farmers and herders, to lose their livelihoods and leave their land, move to urban areas, and magnify Syria’s general destabilisation.”

The issue has even caught the attention of the UK military, with Rear Admiral Neil Morisetti saying earlier this year that climate change would lead to more UK troops being dispatched around the world on peacekeeping missions and humanitarian aid. "The impact of climate change is increasing the stresses - such as food shortages or inequality - in a number of volatile countries, increasing the threat of instability in an already unstable world," said Morisetti. "This will likely increase the number of British troops mobilised around the world in peacekeeping missions, humanitarian projects, and combat operations. This is as much about blood and treasure as it is about environment." Earlier this month, French president Francois Hollande used the threat of climate migrants to try and generate momentum for an ambitious deal in Paris in December – perhaps the most realistic mechanism for prevent a climate refugee crisis. Hollande told the press that without a global deal, “we won’t have hundreds of thousands of refugees in the next 20 or 30 years, but millions, fleeing submerged islands, drought-stricken regions and other catastrophes".

[jonny2mad]

I think its time to throw out the idea of refugees entirely, let alone climate refugees. The people who have these outdated notions will basically commit suicide while killing the people around them.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think its time to throw out the idea of refugees entirely, let alone climate refugees. The people who have these outdated notions will basically commit suicide while killing the people around them.

I don't. There is a clear distinction between a refugee and an economic migrant even if some people fall into a grey area between the two. And if we are going to make a case that it is unsustainable for overpopulated to take in any more people of any sort then I see no reason why we should try to hide behind a redefinition of the word "refugee". On the contrary, we ought to admit that they are refugees and argue that regardles of this, we don't have a moral duty to allow them entry because such a policy is unsustainable. There can be no moral imperative to continue to implement a policy which cannot be continued for much longer.

Another important point is that even refugees can have strong preferences as to where they go. For example, there is no shortage of land in Russia. But the refugees don't want to go to Russia. They want to go to "nice" places in north-west Europe with a pleasant climate. At that point I don't think you should deny that they are refugees, but you have every right to argue that they should be re-homed in places where there is plenty of space and not enough people, rather than the overpopulated places they would prefer.

[jonny2mad]

Were the 1930s jews from germany refugees yes certainly they were, they were fleeing for their lives and oppressed .

When they arrived in palestine people like biff would have cheered, yet a short time later they destroyed that country and displaced its majority inhabitants .

The same will applys today, the worlds full of real refugees, very likely in the future there will be more real desperate people needing a home where they can be safe .

But if you take them in you will be commiting suicide, we dont have resources for all the real refugees, that notion is outdated and bankrupt or soon will be .

I for years have kept on at the same thing the need for people to be more xenophobic and tribal. I have no hope that anyone else will undertstand what I'm saying. But that doesnt matter because thats the way the world will move doesnt matter what your notions are .

Being more xenophobic and tribal will get you ahead of the curve, what I'm saying is the oppersite of what people have been programmed to believe for the last 70 years at least .

If your in a multi-cultural multi-racial country during collapse god help you, if you have notions of being a good samaritan god help you . I think if your cursed with too many people like biff god help you .

Ideally you would have people now speaking out or shunning the people helping refugees in calais. I have friends going and dropping off stuff to calais, and really I question whether I should be friends with these people because they are basically traitors. A lot of them are to stupid to understand that and have been programmed to be traitors but does that make any difference at all