It’s sometimes problematic to attribute migration specifically to climate change 9

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   justlou Posted 4:04 am
   24 Jul 2007

   Just a thought"Then, when donors, NGOs, and host governments become convinced of the challenges presented by climate and security linkages, there will be a full menu of responses to offer and implement."
   David, this is a very thoughtful analysis so don't take this as criticism.  But, by the time that the world has a serious migration problem caused by climate change it is likely there will be no donors, NGOs and host governments capable of dealing with it.  The entire world will be enveloped in chaos.  

   Permalink

2. 

   justlou Posted 4:08 am
   24 Jul 2007

   Excuse meGeoff, not David.  

   Permalink

3. 

   David Roberts Posted 4:26 am
   24 Jul 2007

   Geoff,Great post. It's worth pointing out that the refugee problem is not the only climate-related issue that suffers from the same difficulties. Very little is directly caused by climate change -- there are almost always more proximate causes. So even as the effects accumulate, it is only in the holistic sense that we can tie them to global warming. Just one of many communication challenges that attends climate change.
   
   grist.org

   Permalink

4. 

   cfigallo Posted 5:05 am
   24 Jul 2007

   Migrating away from disasterGood analysis, Geoff
   Migration has historically been a way for humans to adapt to changing climate - at least if they weren't killed off by the change. But we seem to be in a time of accelerated global climate change and even the most educated of us don't know what to expect or where the severe changes will come.
   If and when the sea level rises, will millions need to relocate from the delta in Bangladesh? To where? Will water shortage and heat drive hundreds of thousands out of Arizona's Valley of the Sun? Where will they resettle?
   Is it even feasible that we can plan for such things, or will it all happen in reactive mode?
   It's not like we have fertile frontiers where pioneers can settle open land anymore.
   Not to be a "doomer" but just trying to think realistically.
   -Cliff
   
   Cliff Figallo
   
   Climate Frog
   
   climatefrog.blogspot.com

   Permalink

5. 

   Jason D Scorse Posted 8:54 am
   24 Jul 2007

   Hey Geoff...great points- we need to be precise with language in order to be taken seriously. A necessary service. Thanks.
   
   I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.

   Permalink

6. 

   spaceshaper Posted 10:07 am
   24 Jul 2007

   PrecisionLanguage precision is important but this is surely an example of a particular technical usage attempting to co-opt the general, common and entirely legitimate sense of the word. While the Oxford American Dictionary supports the transnational part of Geoff's claim it specifically includes more than the narrower definition used in the adjudication of political asylum cases to which he presumably refers. Refugee: (noun) a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. I would also argue that the common usage referring to internal refugees is also time-honored and legitimate. Refugee camps and settlements are not infrequently in the country of origin of the occupants.
   At bottom, while Geoff presents an interesting and probably significant legalistic perspective, whether refugee or displaced person is the term of choice the problem is likely to be immense and the suffering intractable.
   
   The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.

   Permalink

7. 

   sjjaquette Posted 10:26 am
   24 Jul 2007

   Environment as Guise for Bad PoliticsThanks for the great article. I've been disturbed by a resurgence of the "Coming Anarchy" mentality implicit in the "climate change refugee" rhetoric, and I applaud your critique of it.  
   In particular, I want to emphasize what's lost in attributing social unrest to environmental causes: we forget about the legacies of colonialism, conquest, and some of the effects of globalization in creating the conditions under which certain communities are not prepared to deal with natural disaster.  As various theorists have written (such as Mike Davis), there is no such thing as a natural disaster; a disaster is only a disaster to the extent that it creates a problem for humans.  Otherwise, they would simply be "natural events."  
   Climate change is surely exacerbating social injustices, but to attribute cause to climate change is to ignore all the other geopolitical causes of social instability.  Such rhetoric has made it possible for us to think of AIDS as nature's way of purging itself of humans (in Preston's The Hot Zone, for example).  We should be thrilled that the environment is getting attention as a problem, but not at the cost of forgetting the political, economic, and historic conditions that make dealing with environmental pressure impossible for many communities.

   Permalink

8. 

   snowbird Posted 2:36 pm
   24 Jul 2007

   Global Warming??? Climate change???Dear Editor,                                                           July 24/07
   Recent research by Henrik Svensmark and his group at the Danish National
   
   Space Center points to the real cause of the recent warming trend. In a
   
   series of experiments on the formation of clouds, these scientists have
   
   shown that fluctuations in the Sun's output cause the observed changes in the
   
   Earth's temperature.
   In the past, scientists believed the fluctuations in the Sun's output were
   
   too small to cause the observed amount of temperature change, hence the need
   
   to look for other causes like carbon dioxide. However, these new
   
   experiments show that fluctuations in the Sun's output are in fact large
   
   enough, so there is no longer a need to resort to carbon dioxide as the
   
   cause of the recent warming trend.
   The discovery of the real cause of the recent increase in the Earth's
   
   temperature is indeed a convenient truth. It means humans are not to blame
   
   for the increase. It also means there is absolutely nothing we can, much
   
   less do, to correct the situation.
   Thomas Laprade
   
   480 Rupert St.
   
   Thunder Bay, Ont.
   
   Ph. 807 3457258
   
   Canada
   Your readers might be interested in these websites.
   Please paste these links in your browser.
   http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507. ...
   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288195,00.html
   http://www.abc.net.au/westqld/stories/s1971899.htm?backya ...
   http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minorit ...
   http://www.worldclimatereport.com/
   http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/opinion/06fri1.html?hp
   http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070705191403.gahm ...
   http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070 ...
   http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289149,00.html

   Permalink

9. 

   amazingdrx Posted 5:05 pm
   24 Jul 2007

   Water and foodLook at war over oil.  Now think about war over food and water.  Africa has it already.  The brutality is incomparable.
   This is our future with GHG energy as usual.  Look to Darfur.
   Imagine the whole population in regions like Mexico and the American southwest fleeing 130 degree heat, fried energy grids, burning crops and forests, and permanent drought.  
   Wake up, this is true global climate disaster.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

   Permalink