Climate Refugees?

It's well known that the recent European refugee crisis was in part caused by climate change, and it's predicted to get a lot worse as the climate warms.

Explain, r1? We were told by Merkel that it was the Syrian war...

Here.

[quote]Severe regional drought between 2006 and 2011 led to food shortages and illness in Syria and drove hundreds of thousands of residents to live in poor conditions on the outskirts of the country’s cities. It was these conditions that served as one of the primary triggers for the civil war that killed several hundred thousand and led to the refugee crisis. Further, the researchers concluded that climate change was a significant factor in the length and severity of the drought – the worst the country has faced in centuries – since normal variability in regional weather would not be sufficient to explain it.

Interesting, r1. Thank you.

I'm still trying to get my head around how importing people from low- eco-footprint areas to the very highest eco-footprint areas is justified. It seems like one of the most ecologically damaging things that can possibly be done.

I'm a climate refugee!!! I have to leave Canada every winter because of the cold and travel to Florida. Please send me money!

Lol. well, exactly, r6. Aren't all the people who "winter" in warm places essentially taking refuge from the climate?

Also, r2, the Syrian drought was regional, so there were neighbouring areas unaffected, and also ended in 2011, a full 4 years before the "refugee crisis". Something's off here.

It's a scam.

We pay twice.

How do you mean about paying twice, r 8? How so?

We pay cash for these freeloaders to leave their country.

We pay for the loss of amenity when these freeloaders live amongst us.

Don't we give aid to help them? What happens to all the foreign aid from all the different western countries?

We (and the Europeans, Japanese and Chinese) made climate change happen. Seems quite just that we pay for it.

How so, r12? I understood that China and India have much higher emissions than Europe or the U.S.

Is that incorrect?

The term “refugee” is used correctly, according to Webster’s.

Here is the only relevant definition of 'Refugee', r14, and it does NOT cover people migrating because of weather.

A refugee, according to the 1951 Refugee Convention, "is any person who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his/her nationality and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country".

Webster’s definition of refugee:

[italic] a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster. [/italic]

I guess the 1951 convention needs to be updated.

Name me the natural disaster that has made an entire nation, from border to border, uninhabitable.

There isn't one, and has never, in all of history, ever been one.

Shut up OP. You're making too much sense.

R17, the explosion of the volcano on Santorini.

The Bhopal disaster, and the Chernobyl disaster were not natural disasters, but made a large area uninhabitable. I don’t think it’s reasonable to ask about an “entire nation”, instead of an area of a certain size. If a disaster made the US west of the Rockies uninhabitable, it would not pass this test, but the test would be meaningless.

The Irish potato famine.

Volcanos are not climate change-driven, and Santorini was not it's own nation at the time but part of the Minoan empire.

r20, in both cases there was no reason to move countries to escape the man-made disaster, both of which were avoidable by maintenance and proper infrastucture, Hardly "Climate change driven" and hardly creating an inability to inhabit from border-to-border.

The Irish who moved did not claim to be "refugees" because of the Potato blight. They arrived by legal means, presented papers, and if they were turned down for residency, they returned to Ireland.

You asked about natural disasters, not about climate related disasters. There’s nothing wrong with changing your question, but just acknowledge you’re changing it.

In R20, my example about the US explains why it’s not meaningful to ask about disasters affecting an “entire nation”, since the size of the nation matters so much.

Reminder that South Florida is officially in a climate crisis and all the Northerners moving here have to go back.

Well, if they are "climate refugees" then I presumed we were talking about Climate-driven disasters, but I take your point on wording, r25.

So, to reiterate, any examples of climate catastrophe that has made an entire country uninhabitable, thereby requiring its citizens to seek residency in another country as a "climate refuge"?

You’re answer in R24 is not reasonable. Of course the Irish were refugees.

Btw, refugees who emigrate usually do so legally. They present papers, if they survived the disaster. If they are turned down, they return home. You don’t expect them to commit harakiri, do you?

^^refugee, not 'refuge'

Either these people will die or richer countries will take them in. I’m in favor of that to a point by but we shouldn’t be expected to sacrifice ourselves.

Why didn't the Irish move to neighbouring Britain? They had the right to do so back in those days. Why all the way to the U.S.? An expensive trip. Could it be that those who went to the U.S. were escaping more than the Blight? Yes. Poverty. They were economic migrants.

The more people we accept the lower our standard of living gets. I’d say we’re about tapped out now.

It’s interesting that this thread arises when Venice is enduring terrible flooding. They created a harbor barrier to block especially high tides, but it didn’t help this week.

The Netherlands also has one of these barriers. I forget where. Maybe off Amsterdam.

Both cost billions of dollars. They didn’t build it for nothing.

In the UK, most asylum claims are now submitted by those who have arrived in the UK either on a temporary 6 month tourist visa or who have snuck into Britain, bypassing the borders. Once inside, they show up at the nearest police station and declare they are asylum seekers.

Yes, r33. The last time Venice flooded to five feet was apparently in 1959. Prior to Climate Change. The flooding barriers have been there, in various forms, for centuries. Same with Dutch dykes.

I guess Australia is out as a place climate refuge, as they have been in drought for the past 30 years.

Yes. Droughts and natural disasters have been happening in different parts of different countries since history was first recorded.

I wouldnt be so smug about the USA and Europe being safe havens from Climate change in the future. There are already residents of places like New Orleans that have given up on the area as to future flooding. Same thing for Houston. People are starting to move out of Phoenix and up to places like flagstaff ariz due to the ungodly increase in summer temps. There are a lot more examples of this type of thing already in the USA. I moved to the midwest from florida about 5 years ago and a part of the reason is I didnt care to stick around for the inevitable price collapse of coastal real estate.

As to Europe, climate scientists are predicting a slowing and eventual stopping of the gulf stream which is what keeps Europes temps moderate........if that occurs all hell is going to break loose climate wise in that area.

R31, many did also migrate to Britain., Australasia, and elsewhere.

It’s a tired argument, questioning the choice of destination for refugees. First, they would always choose a place where they think they will survive. That means allowed to enter, jobs, and maybe a support network, such as family. Nobody seeks refuge in Somalia, and you can’t fault them for that.

The US was giving land away in homestead acts from 1862 to 1909. It was a mythical land of opportunity. Britain was a land of rigid class structure. If you’re forced to move to survive, why not choose a location that you think offers the best opportunity to thrive?

R32, that’s not true. Immigrants are one reason why the US thrives. Alternately, a lack of immigrants is why Japan has stagnated.

They were not refugees to Britainor Austalasia because Queen Victoria ruled both just as she ruled Ireland. The ones who went to the US were mere immigrants, not "refugees". There is no comparison between the Irish and today's proposed "Climate refugees"

R35, the billion dollar flood barriers are in addition to the preexisting flood control measures, which were deemed to be insufficient.

You’re really reaching with some of your responses, such as R35.

R36, Australia is a good example of climate change affecting a large area. They built a desalination plant to provide fresh water there. That is really expensive and only possible because the country is a wealthy one. If it had the wealth of a third world country, the residents would be fleeing.

Hardly r42. Both Venice and the Dutch coast have been flood zones for a very, very, very long time. The fact that 1959 was the last time we saw 5 foot rather than 4 foot annual flooding disqualifies the annual Aqua Alta from consideration as a man-made climate disaster, as there is no argument that the climate was affected back then.

So, now you’re changing your question from climate related to man-made climate change related? How narrowly are you framing the question?

Why can't the Western countries providing foreign aid build desalination plants in drought-stricken areas? Seem a a good use for foreign aid. Also, that is exactly the sort of solution I had in mind when posting this question. Inviting people living in low-carbon footprint areas to move to high carbon footprint areas is not only insane from an emissions point of view, it ignores that there are other ways to help people in say, a drought stricken area. Such as building them desalination plants.

Isn't all climate change man-made climate change, r45?

You mean climate can change...naturally?

Don't tell Extinction Rebellion that.

Here’s the link about low lying islands expected to be submerged by rising sea levels.

Bangladesh is expected to lose a large area of land to rising sea levels, creating millions of refugees. This will be just when India is stressed by a lack of fresh water. The Himalayan glaciers that feed the great rivers of India, Pakistan, and China are shrinking, and this will result in reduced flow of these rivers. So, Bangladeshi refugees will cause a lot of political unrest in the area, as Pakistan will side with the fellow-Muslim refugees against India.

The water tension has already started when India blocked the flow of one river into Pakistan. There was a 1950s or 60s agreement between China, India, and Pakistan allotting a share of the river’s freshwater, and India unilaterally violated the agreement in early 2019. Expect more of this over time.

Again, the solution is not to just migrate away.

If China becomes the promised Land and the rest of world on fire, the solution is not to flee to China. The solution is for China to help put out the fire.

"Expected to"

You mean like the Maldives was "expected to" sink? The Maldives government claimed in 2009 that the islands would be submerged in under ten years. The emergency was so acute, they said, that the Cabinet held an underwater meeting, replete with scuba gear, for benefit of world media in order to raise the alarm. Only more money - a huge amount of money - from various countries and the UN could help them, they said.

The islands have not sunk. Not even close. Indeed, a new airport and a host of new international hotels have been built in the Maldives since 2009.

It was either a money-making scam or it was due to incorrect projections.

^ Yes, incorrect projections and scare mongering.

An Australian idiot declared ten years ago that Australia's third biggest city would be underwater. It hasn't happened.

US aid to Bangladesh in 2019 was $155 million. The Sydney desalination plant cost $1.8 billion, plus the cost of operating it. It can serve 1.5 million people. Bangladesh would need about 100 of these plants. Nobody is giving Bangladesh $200 billion for this effort.

Is the U.S. the only country that gives aid money to Bangladesh? I have a feeling every western country gives Bangladesh money. I'm sure many billions worth in total.

Also, Sydney's desalination plant was not built out of charity. However, one built to give aid to a "3rd world country" would be built along charitable lines. The costs would come down from that alone.

[quote]It's well known that the recent European refugee crisis was in part caused by climate change,

No. The Syrian refugee crisis was caused by the fact that Syria is run by a Russian-supported madman who gasses his own citizens.

[quote] R47: You mean climate can change...naturally?

Of course. The problem with man made climate change is that it is happening faster than man, and many other species, can adapt to it. It means:

Loss of bio diversity

Drought in some areas where people depend on heretofore normal rainfall

Rising sea levels displacing millions of people

More severe storms bringing havoc

Loss of food security where farmland is negatively affected

Other climate change in areas where people have acclimated to the climate the way it was before the climate change

There are up other effects as well, one possibility is that plants that depend on insects, bats, birds, or whatever that are under stress, may fail to be pollinated as much as we are accustomed to, causing food stress and farmer’s livelihood

All the more reason not to move people from low-footprint areas to high-footprint areas, lest we speed up Climate change even further, r56

I suspect that in 50 years, we’ll look back on Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Sandy as the beginning of more climate change-related severe storms that start destroying cities or sections of cities. It’s the kind of thing that will happen sporadically at first, becoming more frequent and severe over time.

The taxpayers can pay for all those climate refugees to be given a new Tesla!

R58 = Greta Thunberg

It's a brilliant way to scam gullible leftists.

I've known a few Dutch dykes, but never a Venice dyke.

R60, how dare you!

[quote]Inviting people living in low-carbon footprint areas to move to high carbon footprint areas is not only insane from an emissions point of view, it ignores that there are other ways to help people in say, a drought stricken area. Such as building them desalination plants.

They don't want to stay in their countries, they want to live in Western countries. And who could really blame them?

I want to live in a palace, r64. One could hardly blame me, but that doesn't give me the right to show up at one and move in.

r65 I'm not saying it's right for masses of people to move like that (it's bad for the host countries) but I can understand why they'd want to.

It's bad for the host countries, it's bad for the abandoned countries, and it's bad for the environment.

So why is it being pushed so hard?

Diversity r67!

Honduras is another country affected by climate issues--severe drought for the past 10 years has helped destabilize it and crime is running rampant.

It's funny some people here think it's an either/or situation--climate-change wrecks the livelihoods of small farmers. This leads to increased poverty, migration to cities, increasing slums. Then there's crime, desperation, etc.

No one should be surprised when people flee to a place they think they can survive.

There's an incredible mix of ignorance and arrogance in this thread.

Gee, climate change people predicted big wildfires in the west, so what happened? Oh, yeah, right, megafires are now an annual occurrence instead of a rarity. Climate change people said there'd be more severe hurricanes, so what happened? Oh, right, there are more severe hurricanes, radically more.

Instead of fretting about people coming to countries with high carbon footprints, why don't we try to lower those footprints? It's a handful of countries producing most of the greenhouse gases--China, U.S., the EU, Russia and Japan.

We could also do more to create more carbon sinks. (Yes, let's plant trees.)

Honduran farmers do not "need" to move entire countries, r69. And drought does not make them actual "Refugees".

Also, China and India create the most carbon emissions. And yet Climate activists never protest those countries. You would think Greta would be suing them if she's going to sue a handful of countries. Did she? No. You'd think climate activists would at least spend one saturday in front of one of their embassies. Do they? I've never seen a climate rally in front of an Indian or Chinese embassy.

There's something seriously off about this whole thing.

If you care about rising emissions, then one of your major concerns would be rising populations in high-footprint countries. Instead, "climate activists" are screaming to import MORE people into high-footprint areas. It makes no sense and it smells like bullshit.

R68 This so-called 'Diversity' scam is on par with the Climate Adjustment scam.

R70, you’re defining “refugees” to purposely exclude climate refugees. You should expand your definition.

What does it matter if is an entire country or just part of the population?

The progressive voice tends to lapse into incoherence and double-speak a little too often for its own good.

This movie is an analogy for what is happening.

I read an article a few months ago that with the unfolding climate change crisis that displaced people will not be able to claim 'refugee status' on the current UN convention from 1948/1949? as it stands. The current convention simply doesn't cover climate change so Western countries will be legally able reject applicants who try to use climate change as their reason.

We should just look out for ourselves. Our own people will probably be in trouble in many parts of the country so we should save space and resources for ourselves.

The UN convention of 1949 needs to updated or ditched.

"Climate change" is a myth, the operative fiction promoted by international organisations and agendaed media because saying OVERPOPULATION is politically and culturally unacceptable. Way too many people overutilising fewer and fewer resources will most definitely affect their environment.

There are no "refugees". There are INVADERS from failed, overcrowded, tribal societies that produce nothing but humanity. Societies that are ruled by brutal despots who know that people who don't have enough to eat won't have the wherewithal to challenge their power and control.

"Syrian refugees" was one of the greatest media con jobs in history. It precipitated the greatest invasion of Western Europe since WWII and an on-going social and political nightmare.

It matters if it's only part of a nation's population that is affected, r72, because the affected part of the population has another part of their OWN country to go to. They have even less of an excuse to claim fake refugee status in another country to which they have no right.

And, since there has never been a disaster of any kind which has devastated an entire country at once, and each disaster area is surrounded by habitible areas withing that country's borders, there *is* no such thing as a "climate refugee".

The 1951 UN charter is good as it is because you don't get the populations of the host countries rising up in opposition to it. Add the fake claim of "climate" and the host taxpayers (already fed up in places like England and France where too many jihadis have turned out to be 'refugees', for example) will REALLY revolt - and make the populist wave we've been seeing move through the EU and America look like a tiny ripple.

Also, I thought you cared about the climate. If you believe in importing people from small footprint areas to high-impact, large footprint areas, then it's obvious you don't give a shit about the climate. All you care about is using climate claims as a means to achieve your actual goals of social engineering and redistribution of wealth. Oh, and of course, "diversity".

Wow, there are a bunch of idiots posting here. Climate change is real, global warming is real, there are literally (at this point) hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles describing it. The scam that people are falling for is not emanating from scientists, it's emanating from the oil and gas industry which has paid millions upon millions of dollars to marketing firms to promote the fiction that climate change is fiction. It's hard to measure sea level rise because it doesn't rise equally around the world at the same time - but measurements conducted around the world have shown that is has been rising steadily since 1880 and the rate of rise has been increasing over the past 25 years. It had been rising about 2 inches per decade but now that rate is accelerating. A foot of sea rise doesn't seem too drastic, but once you add in high tides and storms, that water can be driven miles and miles inland, inundating hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses.

Bone up on your critical thinking skills, people.

I do believe in Climate Change, r80.

That's why it's obvious to me that transporting masses from the low carbon-footprint 3rd world to the high carbon-footprint 1st is only something people who DO NOT truly believe in Climate Change (but who DO see CC based ideas such as "climate refugeeism" as a useful means to other ends) would ever support.

The only "idiots" R80 are those who truly believe that "climate change" and "global warming" are based on anything but lots of political and cultural agenda.

R80, you are just recapping Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" from 2006. There's a reason he was dumped and Greta was brought in... his predictions have failed to come true.

While you scold us about "rising sea levels", Obama is buying oceanfront front property. Who is the real idiot?

By the way, r80, everyone who accepts that there was an Ice Age accepts that the climate changes, and therefore 'believes in Climate Change'.

They just don't buy yours and your fellow alarmists' unsubstantiated, entirely computer-modulated predictions about when, where, how and why the climate changes.

Sane people need to take advantage of the growing incoherence and hypocrisy of progressives to block their stupidest ideas now before it's too late.

The climate has changed many times over the eons. Oceans have risen and fallen. Ice ages have advanced and retreated. Islands were created and destroyed by rising and falling oceans. All of this happened long before man arrived on the scene. I don't think that the farting cow who provided me with my steak is the problem.

[quote] Of course. The problem with man made climate change is that it is happening faster than man, and many other species, can adapt to it.

This was posted up thread. It’s always posted whenever the topic is discussed on DataLounge. And yet someone always posted something like r84 and r86. It’s willful ignorance.

And the problem isn’t farting cows. It’s mostly emissions from fossil fuels, loss of forests as carbon sinks, and other man made actions.

Believing in climate change and mass immigration is incompatible.

[quote] I do believe in Climate Change, [R80].

[quote] That's why it's obvious to me that transporting masses from the low carbon-footprint 3rd world to the high carbon-footprint 1st is only something people who DO NOT truly believe in Climate Change (but who DO see CC based ideas such as "climate refugeeism" as a useful means to other ends) would ever support.

People who are pushing climate refugees and mass immigration either don't believe in climate change or just don't care about anything other than making profits at the expense of American citizens.

R89 They'll continue to toe the party line as long as it benefits them financially. They don't give a shit about anyone but themselves and accumulating as much wealth as possible.

R13 Your information is more incomplete than inaccurate, as it omits the fact that the US and EU were the leading polluters from around the 1860s to the 2000s. So yes, if you ignore 140 years, it is China's fault.

You will need to do more than throw out an unverified assertion and expect to be believed, r91. I doubt very much that the carbon imprint of Europe during the 19th century even comes close to China's in a single decade since mass-industrialisation began there.

Also you're oddly complacent on the Climate activists' ignoring of India and China. You don't really care about their carbon footprint at all do you?

You're a fake, only interested in using Climate as a vehicle with which to weaken the West and thereby further your SJW social engineering goals.

Otherwise your number one concerns right now, by a VERY long shot, would be China and India.

Thanks you OP for showing us that this climates change is just a unAmerican way to let the peoples we don't like into our countries. You are to be congratulated for knowing that scientists and the so called other people like scientists are the bad unpatriotic peoples who want the peoples we don't like to come to our countries just because they have countries that have been destroyed by climates change.

R93 Their countries are being destroyed by overpopulation and tribalism. "Climate change" is simply the acceptable means of expression.

r93, I'm not American, you pointless twat.

When R95 gets a sense of humor, climate change will end.

The only thing amusing thing about you is that you believe your posts are more 'funny' than they are obviously desperate attempts at deflection.

Having said that, what else do you have except for deflection? You certainly can't argue the topic itself, so I suppose you've got no choice.

[quote] R57: All the more reason not to move people from low-footprint areas to high-footprint areas, lest we speed up Climate change even further, [/quote]}

I read once that the world could easily accommodate 10 billion people.

[quote] R92: Also you're oddly complacent on the Climate activists' ignoring of India and China. You don't really care about their carbon footprint at all do you? You're a fake, only interested in using Climate as a vehicle with which to weaken the West and thereby further your SJW social engineering goals. Otherwise your number one concerns right now, by a VERY long shot, would be China and India.

While some signs of climate change are already occurring now. Most predictions refer in the period from 2100 to 2150.

Most westerners have no leverage upon China nor India to get them to change, but they might have leverage to make change within their own countries. Incidentally, China and India are signatories on the Paris Accord, which the US withdrew from. If we want to change China and India, we have to set an example and lead.

China and India signed the Paris Accord because they were only required to promise to improve by 2030.

And, last year - AFTER the Paris Accord - the FT reported that "China's carbon emissions were set for fastest growth in 7 years"

Meanwhile, Ocasio-Cortez has announced that the world only has 12 years. Greta says the world is burning and urgent reductions are needed yesterday. But they say NOTHING to China.

Hypocrites at best. Liars at worst. Which are you, r100?

R101, there’s no call to be rude. You’re not convincing anyone of anything with the boorish behavior you’ve displayed here.

I’ve read comments from Chinese officials that the West has moved to a post industrial world, and its unfair to expect the Chinese or Indians to also do so, denying them the opportunity that the West used to become so wealthy. They especially resent US calls to change, when the US refuses to comply with the Kyoto Protocols and Paris Accord. This is not my opinion, it’s how the third world thinks about the matter.

A good bit of the Chinese carbon footprint results from them making products for the US and Europe - products that are "too dirty" to be made in western countries now. Most modern people are completely divorced from the processes which make the lifestyle they take for granted possible, including food production, clothes and goods. All the cheap products we get which clutter our homes and end up in landfills, are made in polluting factories somewhere. One of the reasons why it's hard to reverse climate change is that people in the West and in Japan would have to give up lots of things they take for granted. Unlimited travel, last minute impulse buying, bulging closets, keeping up to date on every little gizmo, eating things year round that are only produced in short seasons (meaning that they have to be shipped or flown in from all over the world, etc Easy to blame China for our excessive consumerism, but that's really barking up the wrong tree. Ignorance of science and living in denial, which this thread shows is the fall back position, is only going to make the inevitable change to a simpler lifestyle more difficult when the time comes when we have no choice. People could start making changes now - limiting local travel (combining errands), buying or using only vehicles that are super gas efficient or driving electric vehicles, vowing to buy less and reuse, recycle, buying locally grown food in season, buying used goods at thrift stores, use less plastic. Collectively, this would make a huge difference.

[quote] R31: Why didn't the Irish move to neighbouring Britain? They had the right to do so back in those days. Why all the way to the U.S.? An expensive trip. Could it be that those who went to the U.S. were escaping more than the Blight? Yes. Poverty. They were economic migrants.

Britain was exporting food from Ireland during the potato famine. That makes it even more clear that the famine had some political causes.

If you define “starving” refugees as “economic” migrants, then your whittling the definition of “refugees” down until the term applies to no one.

It looks to me that the term “refugee” was not used in the 19th century in the same sense that we use it today. The term “migrants” and “refugee” seem to interchangeably be used at that time.

The refugees created after WWII prompted the UN to define the term “refugee” in 1951, long after the potato famine. You shouldn’t expect the Irish to claim “refugee status”, when the term wasn’t used at the time to describe the Irish immigration.

[quote] R24: The Irish who moved did not claim to be "refugees" because of the Potato blight. They arrived by legal means, presented papers, and if they were turned down for residency, they returned to Ireland.

Likewise, refugees who immigrate emigrate today usually also do so by legal means. They present papers, if they survived the disaster. If they are turned down, they return home. You don’t expect them to commit harakiri, do you?

[quote] R5: I'm still trying to get my head around how importing people from low- eco-footprint areas to the very highest eco-footprint areas is justified. It seems like one of the most ecologically damaging things that can possibly be done.

Do you have a link that explains your conclusion further? It just sounds like one of those things that sounds reasonable at first, but really isn’t.

Incidentally, immigrants to the US are credited with helping enrich all of us. On average, they are not a financial drain. Japan doesn’t have a lot of immigration, and it’s economy has stagnated for decades.

It seems to me that there are a couple different topics being discussed in this thread, and they are getting jumbled-up.

Man Made Climate Change.

Refugees and Immigration.

They may be linked, but it seems to me that the people above who are complaining about Climate Change-related refugees and immigrants, would be complaining about immigrants, even if we all had never heard of Climate Change. Meaning that they just don’t like refugees at all, and are using Climate Change as an excuse to mask their anti-immigrant position.

r109 But what about poor r6. Think of the millions of Canadians who every winter risk their lives and flee across an unfriendly border merely to seek warmth in Florida. Send them your millions people. It's horrifying what they go through each year.

This article discusses immigration from low carbon-footprint areas to the US. It concludes that such immigrants have a smaller carbon footprint than native Americans, but a greater footprint than if they stayed in their home countries.

[quote] R110: But R109, what about poor [R6]. Think of the millions of Canadians who every winter risk their lives and flee across an unfriendly border merely to seek warmth in Florida.

There’s no doubt that they help Florida’s economy.

"Climate Refugees" is another buzz word like "Undocumented" which by law still means "Illegal."

Refugees are different from undocs. We have different laws and treaties that require different treatment for these two groups.

[quote] Also, China and India create the most carbon emissions. And yet Climate activists never protest those countries.

Per capita, the US's carbon emissions are far far far higher

[quote] This article discusses immigration from low carbon-footprint areas to the US. It concludes that such immigrants have a smaller carbon footprint than native Americans, but a greater footprint than if they stayed in their home countries.

If they had stayed in their home countries, they would likely be dead of hunger and thirst

The wealthy, developed countries of today aren't that way because of the some amazing ingenuity of their residents.

These countries are the least likely to have huge natural disasters.

The countries nearer the equator have to constantly deal with disease. Others deal with devastating earthquakes, volcano eruptions, and intense drought or flooding.

Northern Europe and the US are colder and have huge landmasses. There are rarely huge natural disasters that affect large parts of the country.

The US could and do much more to address the problem. Gas prices are low right now and the federal tax on it hasn’t been raise in decades. A 5¢ increase per gallon would make a tank of gas cost, perhaps, 75¢ more per fill up. Yet it would raise a Tom of money to fund infrastructure repair and climate change-related mitigation efforts. It might encourage some people to drive less.

I mention Gas, because we stealthily subsidize the oil industry.

Fiona Hill: My accent held me back in England

"I can say with confidence that this country offered me opportunities that I never would have had in England. I grew up poor with a very distinctive working class accent. In England, in the 1980s and 1990s, this would've impeded my professional advancement. This background has never set me back in America."

Hey r117 - Greetings from Singapore!

r117 said: "The wealthy, developed countries of today aren't that way because of the some amazing ingenuity of their residents. " These countries are the least likely to have huge natural disasters"

Can you point me to some scholarly sources for this? It sounds wrong to me because I can think of places like Qatar (terrible climate) or Japan (tsunamis) that contradict that thesis. But I could be convinced. Still, a great number of developed countries have natural disaster problems, tsunamis in particular affect some very prosperous developed countries . There are also many economically strong parts of the US that have earthquakes, tornados, or earthquakes as persistent natural threats.

The wiki article linked below is for the posters blaming China and India for the world's carbon emissions.

Here’s a tangent for you. I once read that it is no coincidence that the greatest ancient civilizations were all in climates where a starch was easy to grow:

Ancient Egypt, Persia, and Rome - Grain

Ancient North America - Corn

Ancient Peru - Potatoes

Ancient Japan and China - Rice

Ancient Australia - nothing. Oops!

R121, those are per-capital emissions. While interesting from a technological point of view (and, some would say, a moral one), practically speaking what matters is total carbon emissions, since the climate doesn't care if the carbon came from an American SUV or a Darfur orphan's charcoal cooking fire.

Canada and Australia could reduce their per-capital emissions to 0, and it wouldn't really matter because they're small countries in terms of population.

Good bye human race.

You're all going bye bye like the dinos. You were all very bad. Now where's my meteor?

You didn't learn how to love. I'm starting over. I'm making cute fluffy chickens this time.