Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Greens pushing the tired climate refugee myth is old news – but this time they inadvertently made the case for tighter border security.
Climate change ‘will create world’s biggest refugee crisis’
Experts warn refugees could number tens of millions in the next decade, and call for a new legal framework to protect the most vulnerable
Tens of millions of people will be forced from their homes by climate change in the next decade, creating the biggest refugee crisis the world has ever seen, according to a new report.
…
“If Europe thinks they have a problem with migration today … wait 20 years,” said retired US military corps brigadier general Stephen Cheney. “See what happens when climate change drives people out of Africa – the Sahel [sub-Saharan area] especially – and we’re talking now not just one or two million, but 10 or 20 [million]. They are not going to south Africa, they are going across the Mediterranean.”
…
Sir David King, the former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, told the EJF: “What we are talking about here is an existential threat to our civilisation in the longer term. In the short term, it carries all sorts of risks as well and it requires a human response on a scale that has never been achieved before.”
…
“Climate change is the the unpredictable ingredient that, when added to existing social, economic and political tensions, has the potential to ignite violence and conflict with disastrous consequences,” said EJF executive director, Steve Trent.
“In our rapidly changing world climate change – and its potential to trigger both violent conflict and mass migration – needs to be considered as an urgent priority for policymakers and business leaders alike.”
…
The core argument posed by the Environmental Justice Foundation, whose report The Guardian quotes;
… Mass displacement caused by climate change can bring disparate communities with different ethnicities, religious or other cultural beliefs and identities into contact, further driving the potential for conflict. Violence may follow, itself becoming a driver of migration. In Syria, some 1.3-1.5 million people were on the move from drought-stricken regions before a single gunshot was red. This report looks at the prolonged drought that gave the context for the outbreak of Syria’s bloody conflict that has now entered its seventh year. Whilst no-one would assert that climate change was the sole cause of conflict in Syria or elsewhere, it is increasingly viewed as a ‘threat multiplier’, increasing the likelihood of violent conflict arising from pre-existing and complex interactions between political, economic, religious and ethnic forces. …
Read more: https://ejfoundation.org/reports/beyond-borders
Leaving aside the evidence that anthropogenic CO2 is greening the world’s deserts, making life easier for poor people farming marginal land, lets assume for a moment The Guardian and EJF are right – that mass migration leads to conflict.
Surely the first step to addressing this crisis would be to tighten border security?
The West is generous and wealthy, but we will be in no position to help anyone if our own societies are torn apart by conflict, which the EJF believes is more likely when we bring disparate communities with different ethnicities, religious or other cultural beliefs and identities into contact.
Of course, there are other reasons for mass migration than climate.
In my opinion Hollywood is likely a far greater driver of mass migration than climate change. The few times I have visited poor countries, everyone I met said they wanted to move to the USA. They were all fans of US sitcoms, utterly entranced by the glamorous fantasy lifestyle they saw every day on TV, of people living in clean houses with plenty to eat, nice cars, lots of time to socialise, and nobody working very hard.
As life gradually improves in desperately poor countries, more poor people will have access to US TV programmes, and more people will be tempted by the utopian sitcom lifestyle they see every day on their television sets.
The Hollywood meme is not at all far-fetched. This has long been known as the “demonstration effect”, wherein the “have-nots” can see the “haves” and simply want a better life. This is well-known from places like Mexico where luxury in hotels/resorts is juxtaposed with abject poverty. That’s why many resorts are gated. The advent of modern communication brings the stark differences between Western and developing cultures to more and more folks every day. Do these advocates of climate refugees really think that the millions who have moved from Central America/Mexico across the US border did so because of climate change? All one has to add is the “guilt complex” developing in Europe, political leaders who believe in open borders, and a system of support for immigrants and – bingo- millions will move. Europe is in a bad position with easy access from Asia and Africa. North America has restricted access owing solely to isolation, the same thing that kept two world wars off-shore. One only has to compare the immigration policies among developed nations to see the causes for mass migrations (Japan, Australia, USA, Canada vs the EU). Europe is reeling under the pressure of a few million “refugees” – America is debating how to handle 10+ million. The difference is the “clash of cultures” in the EU, and the relatively seamless absorption of primarily Hispanics/Latinos in America.
Global cooling has begun, but I think we can feed everyone and provide energy in abundance, if they don’t migrate. We don’t need a repeat of the mass migration period.
When you look at the areas where migration allegedly it is driven by climate change you will see that overpopulation is a signifiant factor (mostly related to religious/political ideals). These areas are mostly in areas such as deserts that cannot support these populations which have mushroomed in recent decades. No one wants to talk about these self inflicted problems. Add to that the polictical leadership in these countries is often crass and for sure you have a lot of people who want to leave for lots of reasons mostly economic and not least seeking a better future for their children.
We should also remmeber that journalist who report on science issues are hardly qualified to understand the complexities of climate change here are 3 examples of science correspondants from the BBC…
David Shulman attended the Dragon School in Oxford, Eton College, then read Geography at Durham University (Hatfield College), gaining a BA.
Jonathan Amos simply says Open University ???
Matt McGrath studied Journalism he does not state his degree but has an MA in Journalism from Bournemouth University and has a Fellowship in science journalism from MIT
Hardly Scientists… but good story tellers and stories that tell nothing but good news dont get you a by-line and fame.
I for one was hoping threre was something to the CO2 issue… it might have been a means to offset the pending ice age.. wind farms, solar panels and electric cars dont operate very well under a mile or more of ice! Then consdider the climate change migrations that will ensue…
Keep up the good work… the truth will always out!!
the Sahel [sub-Saharan area] especially
Funny, all the studies thus far show the Sahel is becoming ‘greener’ The benefits in Europe are a powerful magnet.
Fake news.
The southern Saharan desert is in retreat, making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.
New Scientist has learned that a separate analysis of satellite images completed this summer reveals that dunes are retreating right across the Sahel region on the southern edge of the Sahara desert. Vegetation is ousting sand across a swathe of land stretching from Mauritania on the shores of the Atlantic to Eritrea 6000 kilometres away on the Red Sea coast.
Nor is it just a short-term trend. Analysts say the gradual greening has been happening since the mid-1980s, though has gone largely unnoticed. Only now is the evidence being pieced together.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2811-africas-deserts-are-in-spectacular-retreat/
“… Mass displacement caused by climate change can bring disparate communities with different ethnicities, religious or other cultural beliefs and identities into contact, further driving the potential for conflict. ”
but but but.
what happened to Grauniad?
Are THEY writing that immigration can drive conflict?
Oh, i get it. Only “displacement caused by climate change ” may have this effect. Another magical effect of devilish CO2: immigration is good, but it turns it ugly. Because, the devil, you know.
ahhhh, the old climate refugee story again.
The UN “disappears” 50 million climate refugees, then botches …
Fifty million climate refugees by 2010. Today we find a world of asymmetric development, unsustainable natural resource use, and continued rural and urban …
Search domain wattsupwiththat.comhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/15/the-un-disappears
.. 2020 is coming. It will be funny.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/environmental-refugees-50_n_826488.html
Three years to the next goal post move.
This is the ultimate in “climate communication”, and is deliberate. What they are doing is attempting to appeal to primarily Conservative paranoia about mass immigration, border security, and in general national security. It is a blatant and desparate attempt to broaden their base, which is continually slipping away.
“some 1.3-1.5 million people were on the move from drought-stricken regions before a single gunshot was red.”
Gunshot are red? What color was it before that?
Maybe they hired Ivan to proofread.
“Gunshot are red?”
Gunshots can be red if red tracer rounds are used.
They say the Las Vegas mass murderer was going to use tracer rounds during his murderous spree but ended up not doing so.
That’s too bad because if he had used tracer rounds everyone would immediately know where the shots were coming from, and they would know where the shooter was aiming, which would enable them to avoid running into fire.
I used to watch those red tracer rounds being fired from aircraft equipped with mini-guns in Vietnam. The red tracers looked like a solid line snaking and undulating down to the ground (every fifth round was a tracer) and when the bullets would hit the ground it would look like a big red fountain had been turned on as the tracer rounds bounced off the ground, high into the air. It was a sight to behold.
We liked those mini-guns. The enemy couldn’t run away fast enough when those birds (Puff the Magic Dragon) showed up.
Climate of fear perhaps and climate of depressed opportunity depending on the locale.
Being able to grow more crops is going to force people to migrate?
The only refugees will be from the Great Fake-News Flood of the 21st century.
We need to take the source areas for this migration under administration. May require force.
‘Climate change’ has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with mass migration, literally nothing, as there are many arid parts of the world with bountiful agriculture and a surplus of life’s good things. All the ‘victims’ mentioned are from countries and regions that are, to be polite, less well off than perhaps they could otherwise be. (If I were to be impolite I’d be modded)
Some of those people seek refuge from religious and cultural tyranny while others are relocating to precisely deliver such tyranny of their own. We must refuse them. Anthony has already nailed the cut-through: Europe needs to secure its borders, and fast.
Every winter, ‘snowbirds’ migrate from the snow to warmer places, closer to the Equator. And when the snow disappears, they migrate northward, to home.
I thought that the suicide open borders policy of the EU was what has been driving more refugees.
Brain-dead political climate will create the biggest refugee surge into Europe. There are people who would create a war to get lifetime benefits in Europe with no need to change your culture and language and no requirement to lift a finger for your keep.
From the data it looks like Islam has been driving more ‘refugees’ into Europe.
+1
Climate will drive more people crazy
Climate will drive more people to drink
Climate will make whatever is bad worse
Climate – the ultimate bogeyman.
Prince William, whose wife is expecting their third child, has sent out a bleak warning that an overpopulated planet threatens animal species. His comments come as experts predict Britain’s population will swell to 70 million by 2029.
https://www.rt.com/uk/408689-prince-william-overpopulation-child/
Bombs are caused by climate change! /sarc
Wait a min here. Stop the presses!
Isn’t global warming supposed to cause sea levels to rise to such an extent that most of Europe will be covered by water and most of the population with it? So…what will all these climate refugees be flocking to exactly? And why only Europe? What about the Americas? (oh wait, Hollyweird will be under water too–so write off ALL of the other countries because only America matters–despite there being 2 continents). These people do know we have boats right? Or is that the way 20 million will get into Europe?
Lets just play here. Assuming there are 20 million climate refugess from Africa and the Middle East due to increasing deserts..etc. That means that more than that will have started out the migration and died along the way through the desert due to dehydration, heat exhaustion…etc. right? Because apparently, modern technology is not utilized in this scenario. So…out of that 20 million that make it, how many more didn’t make it? And if most of Europe is decimated by rising sea levels–those 20 million might be a welcomed site to an underpopulated Europe.
What about Asia in this scenario? What part do they play? Oh wait…I forgot about the inherent ethnocentricity in the article…nevermind, silly me. I mean why in the world would everyone head to Europe anyway if it’s underwater…my bet would be to head into Asia along established migration routes that are still active.
But then you wouldn’t have that ludicrous statement about different cultures colliding.
Paul Penrose. While I in part agree with you, your definition of hate seems to be so broad and all encompassing as to be akin to defining exhaling under the all encompassing umbrella of hurricane. Be proportional in your responses guys and avoid joining the burgeoning ranks of blind zealotry. The issue of immigration has been raised by this article so why be surprised by attempts at analysis regardless with what you personally may or may not agree with? There is certainly something very wrong with current immigration coming into Europe on a scale which has no historical precedence especially when the overwhelming proportion of those immigrants are of a single ideology in a world of multiple religions and ideologies and especially when those people choose not to go to nearby countries with which they have ideological and cultural affinity. Denouncement of opinion as hate is not an argument but politically correct (marxist) bullying.
Why into Europe exactly? I can understand certain scenarios creating refugees but WHY should they automatically head for Europe? Are we talking about running away from heat? If that is the case then why is there no equivalent “concern” in the US for people in the Southern States, Texas et al “fleeing” to the more temperate North. The logic if there is any here is suspect to say the least and smacks more of an agenda desperately seeking to camouflage itself. There are reasons and then there are excuses. I leave you to draw your own conclusions
“… wait 20 years,” said retired US military corps brigadier general Stephen Cheney. “See what happens when climate change drives people out of Africa – the Sahel”
Cold AMO, Sahel drought, from 20 years ahead is about right.
“and history aint changed” The Who, ‘Wont get fooled Again.’
Thank You GeologyJim for this posting. Very insightful.
Based on some of the comments I have seen here, there are some concerned people that didn’t read your post. So, I have linked to it below.
GeologyJim
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/02/claim-climate-will-drive-more-refugees-into-europe/#comment-2653759