Migrant watch (merged topic)

[UndercoverElephant]

IMO

It is now extremely unlikely that we're only going to see a rise of 1m. It is very hard to see how the processes now in motion can be stabilised or reversed until sea level has risen considerably more than that. To put it into perspective, if all the ice melted, we'd be looking at a 70 metre rise. Even if only 10% of it goes, that's 7m. And I don't think a 10% loss of surface ice, given the current situation, is at all unlikely.

It seems to me that large low-lying areas like much of East Anglia, especially those that were permanent salt marsh, or underwater, before humans intentionally drained them and built walls to keep out the sea, are eventually going to have to be abandoned. And I rather suspect that we'd be better off abandoning them sooner rather than later.

Waste of resources trying to keep hold of them. They're doomed.

[johnhemming2]

IMO

It is now extremely unlikely that we're only going to see a rise of 1m.

It depends in part as to by when. Over the current century the IPPC have an estimate under 1m.

[UndercoverElephant]

IMO

It is now extremely unlikely that we're only going to see a rise of 1m.

It depends in part as to by when. Over the current century the IPPC have an estimate under 1m.

I think that estimate is probably wrong, but I was talking about the longer term anyway. There is no reason to believe sea level is going to stop rising 85 years from now.

[johnhemming2]

Fair point. It is a question of direction of travel. People globally will get more excited as the sea levels change. It is, however, possible to trap carbon from the atmosphere as well.

The question, of course, is whether or not there is a discontinuity.

[biffvernon]

There are questions, however, about how practical it is to work to resist the loss of land on the east of the country in certain locations. There are limits as to the practicalities.

Yes, quite right, and in my estimation the EA have quite a good handle on this. Our coasts have been designated with categories like 'hold the line' and 'managed retreat'. It's all down to local geomorphology and the onshore assets. I live in a 'hold the line' zone, basically because it's an accretionary coast so fairly easy to hold the line, but a few miles south erosion is much more likely and the situation is due to be reviewed after 2030, with, meanwhile, pretty much no building being allowed in that area. The key thing is that the Treasury must accept what the scientists and engineers tell them and not go off on some political kick.

There are then questions as to whether we might see substantial increases in Sea Level or just a metre or two.

Indeed. If the worst case scenarios described in the recent Hansen et al paper come to pass we will need to do a radical re-think.

The big unknown, perhaps an unknowable unknown, is the rate of ice melt and sea level rise. It is quite possible that the ice sheets are already out of equilibrium with today's climate, and so whatever we do all the ice will melt leading to over 60m sea level rise, but it makes a lot of difference whether that happens over a few centuries or a few millennia, and perhaps more importantly for today's policy makers, whether we get 1m in a century or 5 or more.

[johnhemming2]

Nothing to disagree with here.

[mr brightside]

If the sea level problem is as serious as some posts are suggesting, it kinda renders the issue of whether or not we accept refugees/migrants/asylum seekers a foregone conclusion because we are only requiring a short term solution, given how much land we stand to lose. The best short term solution must be to dig our heels in and keep as many hungry mouths out as possible, like Ken said some pages ago- Surely it is better to plan for the worst and get the better than do the reverse and be caught out. Any course of action that involves talking in people from foreign lands has to be illogical in the short term, and disastrous in the long term. It's a Darwinian fight for survival as i see it, and some people are suggesting we all commit Hari Kari.

[biffvernon]

No Mr Brightside, the area of the UK is most likely to be exactly the same as it is today for several decades and possibly well into the next century. We may need a new Thames barrier and the sort of sea defences that currently protect Rotterdam, but it's all tried and tested technology well within our current economic capacity.

There are plenty of places in the world where life with quite modest sea level rises will become much more precarious.

[mr brightside]

I'm referring to a decision made in principal, rather than one linked to any specific sq.ml of land lost. If we start to debate about how much rise and when, we'll need another thread. Given the inevitability of a rise in sea level the country will be much worse off in the long term the more people there are, which gives us reason to reject all but the most useful, legal migrants in the short term. What about climate destabilisation? Last year the Somerset levels took a big hit, Scottish farmers are bringing the cows in as we speak.

I've read no valid arguments on this thread for accepting anyone from the 'Jungle' apart from on compassionate grounds, which is illogical. I think treating the ones that slip through the net in accordance with their human rights and not shipping them straight back to Morocco on the first container ship to be passing is compassionate enough.

[jonny2mad]

At the moment the problem is isis, not sea level change or climate change.

And even if we erect a border round the uk you can expect the same things that are happening in syria to happen in the uk and in europe .

I have sympathy for familys running away from isis the only people who seem to be holding their own are the kurds, and would you wish to live with people like isis in control of your country .

I think at some point because of demographics we are going to have the same sort of choices .

How do you defeat isis or pure islam, I think its pretty differcult while you have people who are muslims but not as crazy on your side somewhat .

[biffvernon]

Given the inevitability of a rise in sea level the country will be much worse off in the long term the more people there are,

Two points, first the 'long term' could be so long that it is not relevant for today's policy making, and second, one needs to define what 'worse off' means. If meeting more people born in other nations is 'worse' for you then that's obviously true but if we are talking economics it's likely to be false. The economy, as currently measured in the normal ways, does better with immigration.

I've read no valid arguments on this thread for accepting anyone from the 'Jungle' apart from on compassionate grounds, which is illogical.

Compassion is what makes us human therefore no other grounds are needed. That's logical.

[AutomaticEarth]

Given the inevitability of a rise in sea level the country will be much worse off in the long term the more people there are,

Two points, first the 'long term' could be so long that it is not relevant for today's policy making, and second, one needs to define what 'worse off' means. If meeting more people born in other nations is 'worse' for you then that's obviously true but if we are talking economics it's likely to be false. The economy, as currently measured in the normal ways, does better with immigration.

I've read no valid arguments on this thread for accepting anyone from the 'Jungle' apart from on compassionate grounds, which is illogical.

Compassion is what makes us human therefore no other grounds are needed. That's logical.

Looking at the mess at Kos. The migrants are complaining that Europe is worse than they expected. They can go back to Syria. Not a problem with me. We need propaganda in their home countries to tell the them as such.

[UndercoverElephant]

Given the inevitability of a rise in sea level the country will be much worse off in the long term the more people there are,

Two points, first the 'long term' could be so long that it is not relevant for today's policy making, and second, one needs to define what 'worse off' means. If meeting more people born in other nations is 'worse' for you then that's obviously true but if we are talking economics it's likely to be false. The economy, as currently measured in the normal ways, does better with immigration.

I've read no valid arguments on this thread for accepting anyone from the 'Jungle' apart from on compassionate grounds, which is illogical.

Compassion is what makes us human therefore no other grounds are needed. That's logical.

Looking at the mess at Kos. The migrants are complaining that Europe is worse than they expected. They can go back to Syria. Not a problem with me. We need propaganda in their home countries to tell the them as such.

Exactly. This is the one and only way that this process, and the flow of migrants can end. At the moment they think of Europe as the Promised Land. They need to be disabused of this notion, and fast.

[biffvernon]

Looking at the mess at Kos. The migrants are complaining that Europe is worse than they expected. They can go back to Syria. Not a problem with me. We need propaganda in their home countries to tell the them as such.

Come on, you can do better analysis than this, surely. At Kos crap admin left people waiting in the hot sun for a few hours without water while nearby tourists lounged on their luxury yacht decks. No bombs were dropped, nobody died.

[biffvernon]

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

Biff, if you think that was a personal attack then you have led a sheltered life, and you're going to be surprised what's on the way. I support the dreamers, we need people who can see the ideal path, it gives us something to aspire to. Sadly, the ideal is not going to happen and you will need the realists more than they need you.

The dichotomy between dream and reality is false. One needs dreams, one needs to see the ideal path to know which direction the first real step needs to be taken in.

A realist without dreams, without a vision of the ideal path, blunders about blindly, buffeted by the immediate forces, likely hurting people.