5 ms·

>What would 1.2 billion refugees do? Stay in their countries and improve them just like Westerners do?

by throwaway599281 4y ago

geraneum 4y ago
The irony! Aren’t the industrial countries the biggest contributors to climate change?
- throwaway599281 4y ago
  And are also the leading countries promoting cleaner alternatives to all human activites. What you're missing is that if underdeveloped countries were even capable of reaching the same stage of development we and East Asian countries enjoy, they would contribute as much, and that is actually their goal.
  - geraneum 4y ago
    No matter how you try to warp the logic or the reality of the situation and regardless of the country or culture, the responsibility of dealing with the effects of climate change (or anything else) should be proportional to the contribution that each nation makes. Sure if any country starts to contribute more, they should also take more responsibility. You cannot for example tax someone on the amount of money that they hypothetically can have or want to have which you even claim they are not even capable of having.
  - triceratops 4y ago
    > And are also the leading countries promoting cleaner alternatives to all human activites. So are they going to give all those away for free to poor countries? And also pay for massive programs to recapture the carbon they've already emitted? And mitigate already-locked-in effects of climate change, such as drought and extreme weather? Those are the only conditions under which your "why don't they improve their own countries" suggestion is fair.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
You do realise that it's Westerners causing climate change, not starving villagers in Sub-saharan africa? Some of the first refugees will be from California. The reservoids that are not at record-low took 20 years to fill, they are never coming back.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  California has enough clean energy to desal for human consumption [1] [2]. Ag is another story, but no one needs to flee California due to water needs [3] (human consumption is ~10-20% of total use). Also, the regulation story of water for Ag in California is improving, albeit slowly [4]. [1] https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/US-CAL-CISO?wind=false&solar=false https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/US-CAL-CISO?wind=false&s... (Scroll to "Origin of electricity in the last 24 hours" in left nav; during daylight hours, 75%-90% of total generation are low carbon sources; and I expect that to hit 100% in the next 2-3 years based on CAISO's generator interconnect queue) [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c... (refer to California solar [yellow] and batteries [gray] coming online this year) [3] https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ [4] https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1037369959/new-protections-for-californias-aquifers-are-reshaping-the-states-central-valley https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1037369959/new-protections-fo...
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    But human consumption includes Agriculture, if a country is dependant on the food it grows and there is no water, you will have a famine. If they are just cash crops that you trade for food, you will also have a famine. All the argicultural land in california is about to become a lot less valuable. It's destruction of wealth and nature on a collosal scale. The idea that allowing climate change to continue is good for buinesss is idiotic, and could result in violence unseen since 1940's
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      Climate change is not good, but neither is stripping aquifers for cash crop export. California has not managed its Ag wealth very well (water, soil, similar farming inputs); low water use crops that provide high nutritional value are superior to "luxury" water intensive crops exporting California's water to other markets for the benefit of those farmers. Same way you wouldn't want to support economic policy farming corn in the Arizona desert. Put solar panels there instead (or other crops that are low water intensity). Higher level, there is a lot of inefficiency in US Ag policy causing suboptimal outcomes. Systems get addicted to subsides or resources where costs are not properly allocated.
ben_w 4y ago
Humans are not fish, and cannot remain in place when farmland becomes shallow salt water ocean. Sea level rises are merely one of the things that can cause mass displacement, no matter how much other people moan about it. I’m fairly optimistic about the future — I see this warning from the UN and think “this degree of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is achievable in this timeframe” — but even so I’m still expecting New Orleans and a significant depth of the Italian coast from roughly San Marino to Trieste to disappear.

>What would 1.2 billion refugees do? Stay in their countries and improve them just like Westerners do?

geraneum 4y ago

The irony! Aren’t the industrial countries the biggest contributors to climate change?

throwaway599281 4y ago
And are also the leading countries promoting cleaner alternatives to all human activites. What you're missing is that if underdeveloped countries were even capable of reaching the same stage of development we and East Asian countries enjoy, they would contribute as much, and that is actually their goal.
- geraneum 4y ago
  No matter how you try to warp the logic or the reality of the situation and regardless of the country or culture, the responsibility of dealing with the effects of climate change (or anything else) should be proportional to the contribution that each nation makes. Sure if any country starts to contribute more, they should also take more responsibility. You cannot for example tax someone on the amount of money that they hypothetically can have or want to have which you even claim they are not even capable of having.
- triceratops 4y ago
  > And are also the leading countries promoting cleaner alternatives to all human activites. So are they going to give all those away for free to poor countries? And also pay for massive programs to recapture the carbon they've already emitted? And mitigate already-locked-in effects of climate change, such as drought and extreme weather? Those are the only conditions under which your "why don't they improve their own countries" suggestion is fair.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

You do realise that it's Westerners causing climate change, not starving villagers in Sub-saharan africa? Some of the first refugees will be from California. The reservoids that are not at record-low took 20 years to fill, they are never coming back.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
California has enough clean energy to desal for human consumption [1] [2]. Ag is another story, but no one needs to flee California due to water needs [3] (human consumption is ~10-20% of total use). Also, the regulation story of water for Ag in California is improving, albeit slowly [4]. [1] https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/US-CAL-CISO?wind=false&solar=false https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/US-CAL-CISO?wind=false&s... (Scroll to "Origin of electricity in the last 24 hours" in left nav; during daylight hours, 75%-90% of total generation are low carbon sources; and I expect that to hit 100% in the next 2-3 years based on CAISO's generator interconnect queue) [2] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c.png https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/images/figure_6_01_c... (refer to California solar [yellow] and batteries [gray] coming online this year) [3] https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ https://www.ppic.org/publication/water-use-in-california/ [4] https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1037369959/new-protections-for-californias-aquifers-are-reshaping-the-states-central-valley https://www.npr.org/2021/10/07/1037369959/new-protections-fo...
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  But human consumption includes Agriculture, if a country is dependant on the food it grows and there is no water, you will have a famine. If they are just cash crops that you trade for food, you will also have a famine. All the argicultural land in california is about to become a lot less valuable. It's destruction of wealth and nature on a collosal scale. The idea that allowing climate change to continue is good for buinesss is idiotic, and could result in violence unseen since 1940's
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Climate change is not good, but neither is stripping aquifers for cash crop export. California has not managed its Ag wealth very well (water, soil, similar farming inputs); low water use crops that provide high nutritional value are superior to "luxury" water intensive crops exporting California's water to other markets for the benefit of those farmers. Same way you wouldn't want to support economic policy farming corn in the Arizona desert. Put solar panels there instead (or other crops that are low water intensity). Higher level, there is a lot of inefficiency in US Ag policy causing suboptimal outcomes. Systems get addicted to subsides or resources where costs are not properly allocated.

ben_w 4y ago

Humans are not fish, and cannot remain in place when farmland becomes shallow salt water ocean. Sea level rises are merely one of the things that can cause mass displacement, no matter how much other people moan about it. I’m fairly optimistic about the future — I see this warning from the UN and think “this degree of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is achievable in this timeframe” — but even so I’m still expecting New Orleans and a significant depth of the Italian coast from roughly San Marino to Trieste to disappear.