Migrant watch (merged topic)

[biffvernon]

Green Party deputy leaders Dr Shahrar Ali and Amelia Womack will meet refugees on a visit to ‘the Jungle’ migrant camp in Calais on Wednesday (12 August).

The pair have both spoken out against the ramping up of anti-immigrant rhetoric from the UK government in response to the humanitarian crisis, which has seen hundreds of migrants risk their lives attempting to reach Britain.

The visit will see them offer their support for the refugees and listen to their personal stories.

Ali said:

"It’s important to me to be able to hear the refugees’ side of the story first hand. Too often they are vilified, seemingly to make it easier for the public to accept ever more brutal clampdowns on a small but vulnerable group of people.

“It is vital for politicians to remedy the inhumanity of this situation in pursuit of just and fair solutions. Instead of building stronger fences, our government must invest in ensuring that people seeking asylum are treated humanely and not left in limbo.”

Womack said:

“The language used by our government to demonise refugees affects not just those in Calais but the generations of refugees who have moved to the UK, settled here and contributed to our society.

“This is a humanitarian crisis and should be treated as such. The UK government needs to help to address the long-term problems that force people to flee their home countries by investing more in international aid and peacekeeping, and by committing to taking our fair share of the migrants who risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean Sea.”

- See more at: https://www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015 ... 9XcvT.dpuf

[Catweazle]

One of several reasons not to eat prawns.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/en-gb/76 ... rafficking

One of several reasons not to approve of the UK Foreign Secretary.
http://stopwar.org.uk/news/marauding-mi ... -ignorance

Following a link, I found a UK protest band. I haven't listened to Captain SKA before, but they made me smile tonight.

I liked this one, although I suspect Mr Hemming won't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWT-o-H4srg

[AutomaticEarth]

That was aimed at me by the sounds of it.

Nope. That's the second time you've made that error. In future perhaps you'd better assume that unless I actually mention you by name, I do not have you in mind.

Or do you think it applied to you? I thought you were Canadian. How does that qualify you to be a Little Englander?

Hi Biff, I do not live Canada, I come from Essex I must admit I do come across as a LIttle Englander at times. But as some have said on this thread, please ensure you aim your response at the right folk

[kenneal - lagger]

I can assure you that J2M is a real person as I've met him. I do not think what he is saying is racist. It might not be politically correct in some peoples eyes but that is no reason to ban him. He has his own experience and it is different from that of others here. That gives him a different perspective from others here but does not mean that his is the wrong perspective; only time will tell on that one.

The legal situation regarding refugees is that they should seek asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in which is arguably the first European country that they arrive in which should include Turkey, as that is a stable democracy. If they should be shared out surely they should be shared out on a land area basis.

It is ridiculous that Britain, with the same population as France but a fifth of the land area, should be expected to take the same number of refugees. Most of the continental European countries have a much lower population density than those in the North West corner. Poland, which has sent so many people into the rest of Europe, has only taken about 400 refugees and most of its mainly Catholic population is loath to take any at all!

There is a case to be made that Moslem Middle Eastern countries should be taking the majority of these refugees as they are of the same culture and religion and most of the conflicts in the region are due to a civil war between different branches of Islam. It may have been prompted by a drought but it is being financed by local protagonists who are rich on the oil money that we send them. Why should we also pick up the cost of looking after their fellow Arabs made homeless by the weapons that they are providing?

Regarding land loss due to sea level rise, we are locked into sea level rise unless we can reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere to below the 380 ppm mark, at least. The ice has been melting since we passed 380 and was probably melting well before that. As our politicians are supposedly aiming for a 2 to 4 degree max rise anyone living below 0 AOD is stuffed.

Anyone living below 7m AOD will probably not have anything to leave to their grandchildren and anyone living below 20m AOD will not have later generations living on that property unless it is in a boat!

We should be planning now to move people out of all our coastal cities in the next hundred years because we won't have the wherewithall to raise sea walls to take both the sea level rise and increased storm surges due to the more weather events that are predicted. Any investment in sea walls will be essentially useless as the predicted rises would overtop anything that could reasonably be built.

Most investment of that type will go to protect cities because that is supposedly our most valuable land or it is to the Kleptocracy who own it and make the investment decisions. Most of our best farmland is near sea level so we will lose that because food production is of lesser value. Let's see how that pans out when we are losing the world's most productive land to sea level rise.

We are supposed to be investing in renewable energy, in electric cars, trains and buses, in hundreds of thousands of houses for refugees, in greater food production and in raising the sea defences at a time when our economic output, which is entirely dependent on energy use, will be reducing drastically as our energy availability, and hence use, reduces. There will just not be the funds available for all of these things.

We will have to make a decision over whether or not we are to be swamped by people as well as by water. We will have millions of internal refugees and I would think that most people will say that charity begins at home and many will be saying that anyone of a different culture should go back home. In dire straits people think very differently to when they are affluent.

[biffvernon]

If they should be shared out surely they should be shared out on a land area basis.

Surely not. Land area is a rather arbitrary measure. Take two countries of equal area and equal population, one largely a desert with low per capita GDP, the other a fertile land rich in primary resources and a high GDP. You think migrants should be shared equally? More than land area has to be factored into the equation.

anyone living below 0 AOD is stuffed.

That's wrong. I'm not stuffed and neither are a large proportion of the people of the Netherlands. We have the civil engineering capability to live slightly below sea level. Whether that lasts till into the 22nd century depends on whether the bad end of the range of possibilities recently described by Hansen et al comes to pass. It's one of the big unknowns.

We should be planning now to move people out of all our coastal cities in the next hundred years because we won't have the wherewithall to raise sea walls to take both the sea level rise and increased storm surges due to the more weather events that are predicted. Any investment in sea walls will be essentially useless as the predicted rises would overtop anything that could reasonably be built.

That's true only at the bad end of the range of possibilities. We should certainly do the planning and we shouldn't make major new building investment at sea level, but it's too soon for Britains to move uphill. We can cope with a 1 metre rise quite easily.

We are supposed to be investing in renewable energy, in electric cars, trains and buses, in hundreds of thousands of houses for refugees, in greater food production and in raising the sea defences at a time when our economic output, which is entirely dependent on energy use, will be reducing drastically as our energy availability, and hence use, reduces. There will just not be the funds available for all of these things.

Some of that list of investments result in increased economic growth so lumping them all together and concluding that 'There will just not be the funds available for all of these things' is not appropriate.

We will have to make a decision over whether or not we are to be swamped by people as well as by water.

That's slipping into the language of Cameron and Hammond and is unhelpful.

We will have millions of internal refugees

During my new grandchild's lifespan that would only happen if sea level rise is at the worst end of the possibility range. We need to plan for it but not yet act.

and I would think that most people will say that charity begins at home and many will be saying that anyone of a different culture should go back home.

The racists among us may indeed take that view. It needs to be countered at every instant.

[Catweazle]

A wordy reply about sea levels, conspicuously different to your replies on immigration subjects. You can see why people get frustrated can't you ?

[kenneal - lagger]

The worst end of the scale of climate change is happening and our politicians are talking about carbon reduction but doing nothing so why is there any reason to expect anything but the worst end of the range to occur? Arctic ice loss has been far greater than expected so far and the CO2 concentration is rising exponentially so that doesn't hold out much hope of anything but the worst end of the scale either. A reduction in CO2 level below that which we have now is required to reverse ice loss and we are not even talking about that so why expect an outcome at the better range?

Why are you suddenly optimistic when our reaction to immigration is concerned when you are generally pessimistic about climate change otherwise? Surely it is better to plan for the worst and get the better than do the reverse and be caught out?

[biffvernon]

Is that a constructive contribution to debate or a personal attack?

Ken raised a number of points that I thought worthy of a response and that have perhaps not been sufficiently aired previously. I suspect that people who 'get frustrated' are those who don't like my argument but fail to find the rational counter-argument.

It's tiresome to repeat things over and over, but if there's something I have not covered in your position, Catweasel, please remind me.

[kenneal - lagger]

We are supposed to be investing in renewable energy, in electric cars, trains and buses, in hundreds of thousands of houses for refugees, in greater food production and in raising the sea defences at a time when our economic output, which is entirely dependent on energy use, will be reducing drastically as our energy availability, and hence use, reduces. There will just not be the funds available for all of these things.

Some of that list of investments result in increased economic growth so lumping them all together and concluding that 'There will just not be the funds available for all of these things' is not appropriate.

We need the funds to do any of that but we are effectively in recession at the moment if increased debt is taken into account, according to a lecture given by Jean-Marc Jancovici of Carbone 4 at the UCL energy Institute recently. We have been using less energy every year since 2008 and so are in a structural recession.

We will have to make a decision over whether or not we are to be swamped by people as well as by water.

That's slipping into the language of Cameron and Hammond and is unhelpful.

It might be unhelpful to you but it might be the truth to many people who value the survival of their own families. The Palestinians, and the North and South American aboriginal people might take my view rather than yours.

We will have millions of internal refugees

During my new grandchild's lifespan that would only happen if sea level rise is at the worst end of the possibility range. We need to plan for it but not yet act.

and I would think that most people will say that charity begins at home and many will be saying that anyone of a different culture should go back home.

The racists among us may indeed take that view. It needs to be countered at every instant.

That is not necessarily a racist view. It could be said to be a survivalist view.

[johnhemming2]

I have had a quick glance at the figures and might bring out the total energy consumption figures on my blog. It does appear that energy consumption is less than in 2008 even though we have a GDP around the same real value. That is good from the perspective of energy intensity of GDP.

I have always argued it is possible to have some growth with constant resource usage, but obviously growth is constrained by resources.

[Little John]

a) It has happened
b) Services such as live acoustic gigs.

That's tertiary activity and so, whilst representing "growth" in a particular region of an economic territory, does not represent growth at the territorial level since it is just moving the deckchairs around. Economic growth is defined by an increase in economic wealth. Not by a redistribution of that which already exists.

Try again.

[johnhemming2]

a) It has happened
b) Services such as live acoustic gigs.

That's tertiary activity and so, whilst representing "growth" in a particular region of an economic territory, does not represent growth at the territorial level since it is just moving the deckchairs around. Economic growth is defined by an increase in economic wealth. Not by a redistribution of that which already exists.

Try again.

It is growth for all that it matters. Being more energy and resource efficient can provide a growth in economic activity.

Define "Growth at the the territorial level." Note that growth is the first derivative by time as to the level of economic activity in real terms.

[Little John]

a) It has happened
b) Services such as live acoustic gigs.

That's tertiary activity and so, whilst representing "growth" in a particular region of an economic territory, does not represent growth at the territorial level since it is just moving the deckchairs around. Economic growth is defined by an increase in economic wealth. Not by a redistribution of that which already exists.

Try again.

It is growth for all that it matters. Being more energy and resource efficient can provide a growth in economic activity.

Apart from the introduction into your argument regarding energy efficiencies (which has its limits, not to mention, economic contraction effects on the energy industry), this is obfuscatory drivel as exemplified by your deliberately misleading use of the term "growth for all". Wealth redistribution, either by tertiary activity or by direct re-distribution via the tax system is not "growth for all". It is growth for some as a consequence of de-growth for others. Whether that de-growth is voluntary (via tertiary activity) or compulsory (via a progressive tax regime) is not pertinent to the facts here. It is not "growth for all".

Define "Growth at the the territorial level." Note that growth is the first derivative by time as to the level of economic activity in real terms.

More of the same

Follow a unit of money's transactional relationships and, like or not, sooner or later, you will end up in a field somewhere (or some other primary resource). To the extent that does not happen, is the extent to which monetary inflation occurs.

One more chance;

Explain, in terms, how economic growth (meaning, by definition, an increase in primary wealth) can occur in a capitalist system of debt based money creation in the absence of primary resource consumption.

[biffvernon]

Explain, in terms, how economic growth (meaning, by definition, an increase in primary wealth) can occur in a capitalist system of debt based money creation in the absence of primary resource consumption.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'primary wealth'. GDP (and that's what, rightly or wrongly, most folk use as a measure of growth) certainly includes the financial transactions associated with JohnH playing in a jazz quartet. The more the economy shifts towards such activities the more it is decoupled from energy use. It is, at least theoretically, possible to have infinite growth on a finite plane if absolute decoupling is achieved. For now, however, GDP growth is a near proxy for planet wrecking.

[Little John]

Explain, in terms, how economic growth (meaning, by definition, an increase in primary wealth) can occur in a capitalist system of debt based money creation in the absence of primary resource consumption.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'primary wealth'. GDP (and that's what, rightly or wrongly, most folk use as a measure of growth) certainly includes the financial transactions associated with JohnH playing in a jazz quartet. The more the economy shifts towards such activities the more it is decoupled from energy use. It is, at least theoretically, possible to have infinite growth on a finite plane if absolute decoupling is achieved. For now, however, GDP growth is a near proxy for planet wrecking.

Have you actually read my posts?