By H. Sterling Burnett -September 13, 2021
A Google news search today of the term “climate change” turns up dozens of stories carried by the mainstream media claiming a study from the World Bank shows climate change could force more than 200 million people to migrate within the borders of their own countries from farms to cities. Like previous predictions made about climate change forced immigration, this is wrong. The claims are based on simulations from flawed computer models. Real world data paints a quite different story, showing crop production is increasing.
The Associated Press, The Hill, NBC News, Reuters, and Voice of America, were among the dozens of mainstream media outlets and news services publicizing a new report from the World Bank, titled “Groundswell.”
“Climate change is a powerful driver of internal migration because of its impacts on people’s livelihoods and loss of livability in highly exposed locations,” writes the World Bank. “[C]limate change, an increasingly potent driver of migration, could force 216 million people across six world regions to move within their countries by 2050.”
The main driver of internal migration, according to the World Bank, is that climate change will make farming increasingly difficult, forcing millions of people, mostly in agrarian developing countries, off their farms and into cities unprepared to handle the influx.
Had the media outlets hyping the Groundswell report bothered to examine existing data, they would have found the World Bank’s claims were unfounded. The World Bank’s immigration projections are based solely on computer models which the U.N. has recently admitted are flawed.
For example, CBS News’ coverage of the World Bank report highlights purported likely internal migration of tens of millions of people within Algeria, Bangladesh, and Tunisia as a result of climate change.
Wheat and barley are the two most important crops in Algeria and Tunisia. Between 2000 and 2019, a period the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has referred to as the warmest two decades on record, crop production data from the United Nation Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show:
- Wheat production in Algeria increased by more than 409 percent and barley production increased by more than 909 percent.
- Wheat production in Tunisia increased by more than 71 percent and barley production increased by more than 289 percent.
Rice is Bangladesh’s top crop by a large margin. Between 2000 and 2019, FAO data show rice production in Bangladesh increased by more than 45 percent, setting new production records 13 of the past 19 years.
What’s true of Algeria, Bangladesh, and Tunisia is true for every region studied by the World Bank. As explained in Climate at a Glance: Crop Production, almost every nation on Earth is benefiting from steadily increasing crop yields as the Earth modestly warms. And as documented by the United Nations, the number of climate-related disasters has been declining this century. (See the figure)
It is a shame the mainstream media seems to have swallowed the World Bank’s bogus climate- induced migration claims hook, line, and sinker. Journalists should be more skeptical, especially since international agencies have made similar false predictions repeatedly in the past two decades only to have their prognostications prove untrue. For example, as detailed in Climate at a Glance: Climate Refugees, in 1989, a senior U.N. environmental official claimed, “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Also, in 2005, the U.N. claimed, “Rising sea levels…will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade.”
Neither of these predictions, both based entirely on computer model projections, came true. The latter projection became such an embarrassment for the U.N. it tried to “disappear” the claim.
Climate change may provide an impetus for migration from farms to cities, but for good reasons, not bad. As crop yields improve, fewer people are needed on farms to raise crops. As nutrition improves and incomes increase, the history of development in developed countries show, increasing numbers of people demand greater access to education and over time migrate to cities to take non-farm related industrial, commercial, and white collar jobs.
Surely the World Bank and the mainstream media can’t disapprove of economic development and the poor in developing countries raising themselves out of a poverty previously so intractable that generation after generation of people are farm laborers out of necessity rather than choice.
H. Sterling BurnettH. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. is managing editor of Environment & Climate News and a research fellow for environment and energy policy at The Heartland Institute. Burnett worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis for 18 years, most recently as a senior fellow in charge of NCPA’s environmental policy program. He has held various positions in professional and public policy organizations, including serving as a member of the Environment and Natural Resources Task Force in the Texas Comptroller’s e-Texas commission.
“Climate change may provide an impetus for migration from farms to cities, but for good reasons, not bad. As crop yields improve, fewer people are needed on farms to raise crops.”
Historically, it happened the other way: as industrial production evolved towards bigger factories and higher concentrations of works in the same place and living in multi-storey buildings with no space available for having the subsistence potatos and beans in their backyards, it became necessary to bring to them in the cities large quantities of foodstuffs produced in the countryside. This pushed to the concentration of farming/livestook in bigger enterprises and to scalling up the technology of production. Among the useful scientific apports was the selection of more productive species (vegetable and animal) and, in horticulture, the increment of vegetative propagation (e.g., in fruit production): the absence of recombination from generation to generation of seed-propagated crops created a uniformity of development and thus a capacity to predict when and how much would be cropped.
So, it was the development of industry that gave impetus to the increase in productivity in agriculture. Of course, industry took that role when in has grown and concentrated in big factories: a permanent salary income was atractive for people to leave agriculture and become workers: they did not leave because productivity of farms had risen, but because they got a better salary.
Interesting idea. It is true that working away from the farm is a whole lot easier that working on the farm Farm work is hard and never ending. Livestock needs care daily, so no days off unless one hires laborers. Farm work traditionally has paid poorly too. It is a good life but not everyone is suited to the farm life.
As people concentrate in cities, the small production of independent farmers becomes relatively less and less profitable. So, these small farmers become attracted by jobs in factories: they sell the small farm and go to live in a building in the city. Their bigger neighbours buy the small farm at a deprecated price, and thus create bigger units of production, themselves assuming a capitalist structure and hiring agricultural labour (!!!) — but scale and the selection of more profitable technologies increase the productivity of labour and the same amount of foodstuffs is now produced with less labour. To a certain extent, you can see the process working in our days, at different stages of its development (in the range from almost feudal third world countries to the capitalist developped economies). And, in connection with other stream of discussion, you can find it in the comparison that I have made between the urban areas around Lisbon and Porto.
The “impetus from farms to cities” is to a certain correct,as it is and was always part of Agenda 21 to force people to live in cities as it is easier to control them,to indoctrinate them ,to break up the family unit.
That ‘s why democrats,socialists and green parties get most of their votes there.(the less democracy,social competence and green plants exist the more people tend to vote for such parties = 100% Orwellian and that’s why inner city ghettos with 80%out of wedlock kids,high crime rates and zero nature vote 95% democrats,just as blacks voted 95% democrats during jim crow era,nothing has changed)
And this concept again is communist to the core.
They called it systematisation.
The indoctrination in your country towards systematisation started in the 60ies (alongside the hippie movement)when TV stations in your country systematically shut down successful rural TV shows(known as rural pur)and replaced them with failures like SOAP.
SOAP was a huge failure and made losses from day one but it had the first gay transsexual role(billy crystal )therefore it was kept artificially alive for several years.
(similar illogical antiprofit moves by tv stations where hundreds of millions of profit were sacrificed for the sake of the narrative were the Hunter Biden sex tape scandal,Arkancide aka Clinton Bodycount,the protection of Epstein by MSM CEO’s after he was already exposed by Amy Robach in 2015(there is no bigger news than a pedoisland for Hollywood Celebrities,top politician and british royals which is owned by a billionaire whose main childsextrafficer was the daughter of another(MSM) billionaire))
Well, you don’t know my country…
Regular tv emissions started in 1957, with only one state-owned channel, only rich people could aford to have a receptor. Tramsmitting only a few hours a day.
There was a dictatorship ruling the country, and censorship of ALL mass media previous to publication. Censorship was political but also moralistic, eliminating everything that was not coherent with an archaic, rural society. And, of course, with a very conservative catholic orientation (this religious stance changed a little some years later). News from abroad were scarce. Even elections in countries not at all “red” (as France, Italy, UK, USA,…) were very limited and biased in order not to poison the morals of the “good Portuguese people”.
The second tv channel (also state-owned) started operating in 1968. Private channels (only two) operate since 1992. Access to forein stations (satelite, cable) started in 1998.
SOAP in the 1960s in my country? Not even in our most rose-colored dreams of those days!…
Sorry,i assumed you were American
To “assume” makes an ass of you and me! (And yes, I do it too)
Please, don’t be sorry. No offense taken.
On the contrary, I must thank you for this confusion: it made me think.
What I have described is what happened in European history. After your comment, I came to see that this historical development applies only to Europe and other “old” countries. That is to say, regions where all arable land was already occupied when the “Industrial Revolution” started. But that DOES NOT apply to the USA and Australia, for instance: arable land was not a scarce resource. In the USA, “go West” and start big commercial agriculture/cattle growing enterprises by reclaiming the land. There was no small farming to be concentrated, there was no heritage of feudal relations of power and ownership to be reversed. Capitalist industry grew together with capitalist food production.
Exactly where is current climate change improving crop yields?
Because the droughts and floods and fires sure aren’t… and they are from climate change
Firs off, fires don’t have any impact on farm production, unless it is the farm that is burning down.
The droughts and floods are entirely within the range of normal.
Now to answer your question.
CO2 is plant food and it has been known for over 100 years that enhanced CO2 increases plant production.
Additionally a few tenths of a degree warming (which is all we have seen) increases the length of the growing season.
Griff, in the absence of anyone else replying to you, bear in mind that crop yields have increased across the world. Certainly you can find isolated places where drought, floods and fires might have caused crop failures. Overall, a huge increase, as you have read.
Re climate change, none of the phenomena you mention are any worse now than they have ever been. Only people like you and the propagandists who want us to believe in a climate emergency, talk about the relationship.
Do you really think fires are worse now than they were? Look at the records in the USA, and Australia. Go back 10 years and it looks bad. Go back 50 – 100 years and the current problems look the same or less important than before.
This is just ignorance. I filmed the bush fires on Oz in ’83. Far more people died, far more livestock died, far more acres affected. Go back 110 years and it was even worse.
I hope you can accept that you have been fed a falsehood, and chosen to believe it, as a lot of others have done the same. Very sad…
griff, IN SPITE OF “the droughts and floods and fires“, agricultural production continues to grow! Pleas check some statistics from the UN, FAO, etc., and also the official statistics of some contries (please do not chose those that are in civil war and other distorting political periods).
What you call the “current climate change improving” has nothing to do with climate change, is the normal, natural, reaction of green plants to their environment PLUS some increase due to more productive agricultural technologies; and, unfortunately, MINUS some potential forest productivity that does not come to existence due to stupid pseudo-protection of the “environment” by eco-fanatics.
The global effect is documented by remote sensing (you certainly know of the two or three papers that were published about that). Some other, particular aspects are DOCUMENTED in the legislation and the statistics of many countries: areas cropped, introduction of technologies and new plant varieties, etc. There are specialized international institutes that assemble useful statistics, often relating the agricultural progress with social progress, betterment of living conditions, etc. (CIMMYT, IRRI, etc.). It wouild be very useful for you to read and study those documents, perhaps you could understand better the world where you are living.
Everywhere, griff, everywhere 😀 Nothing to care about 😀
Exactly where is current climate change improving crop yields?
Try India
India to see record wheat harvest in 2021-22 amid higher export prospects
India to see record wheat harvest in 2021-22 amid higher export prospects | S&P Global Platts (spglobal.com)
If you spent more time reading this site for comprehension instead of mindlessly opposing everything, you would already know the answer to that because it has been mentioned many times in posts and comments. But I’ll humor you.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming
Notice that satellite OBSERVATIONS clearly show an improvement in photosynthesis due to more atmospheric CO2, but the (CMIP) MODELS keep predicting global crop declines, demonstrating once again that the models are wrong. If they don’t match observations, they’re wrong. QED.
And of course innovation continues to improve crop production (see my comment), negating any of the supposed declines that climate alarmists assure us are going to happen, but no one has observed yet.
Griff: Just go to “Our World in Data” and check out their data on crop yields. You will find that virtually every type of crop in every part of the world has increased significantly in terms of yield per Hectare over the last 60 years. Only a few local exceptions that correspond to civil unrest, wars, etc. The increases are due to many factors including cross breeding, fertilizers, better methods, pesticides, herbicides, etc. But also by CO2 fertilization as proven by significant increase in leaf area index in vast areas not affected by agricultural practices. Certainly bad weather claimed by you alarmists has not had a noticeable negative impact.
Everywhere, you lie spewing liar.
Nonsense! Show evidence or stop spouting lies
Australia is expecting record crop yields … our biggest problem is workers to help with harvest due to covid restrictions
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/australias-farmers-on-track-for-record-breaking-season-easily-surpassing-dollar70bn-worth-of-produce
Again
Always Griff
….climate change could force more than 200 million people to migrate within the borders of their own countries from farms to cities …..
R i i g ht … and who will feed them ?
Nobody . That’s their plan ?
but nobody will feed them if they stay put either@ in the city they might be able to work for money to buy food.
and yes, it isn’t going to work out, which is why this is a climate emergency…
One of these days griff will do something beside make unproven, naked assertions.
One of these days you’ll actually advance a counter argument or cite a fact in an attempt to prove me wrong?
griffter, many of us have schooled you with data, facts, and references many, many times. You’re the one who makes unfounded assertions which can’t be backed up with any fact and then disappears.
Many of us challenge your falsehoods only because there might be newcomer listening in who doesn’t yet know that you’re a worthless liar.
I have done just that, thousands of times.
It’s not up to MarkW to prove you wrong, it’s up to you to prove your assertions are correct. They are incorrect until proven otherwise, and that proof is up to you, not MarkW.
Griff, you are incorrect until you prove otherwise.
There is a difference between evidence and unsubstantiated assertions. You have unsubstantiated assertions, and have never provided any evidence to show these assertions represent reality.
Proving something is the responsibility of those *making* claims. Skeptics don’t make claims, instead they evaluate the claims of others and then decide if evidence has been provided to prove the assertion.
The skeptic verdict on you, Griff, is you have not provided any evidence to back up your unsubstantiated claims.
You are the one that has something to prove, when you are the one making the claims, not anyone else.
And the truth is you have no evidence. You are just trying to bluff your way through. It’s not going to work. Skeptics require proof in order to lose their skepticism.
One of these days, so much that is expected is going to happen at once, and the world will go into a faint. 😁
Griff, urbanisation happens to every country as it industrialises. This is perfectly normal and nothing to do with global warming. Urbanisation is accelerating in Africa, reducing birth rates and increasing the standard of living in each country. This is why energy use is exploding in Africa with 1250 coal fired power stations planned in the next decade.
er… no, there are nowhere near that number of coal power stations planned in Africa.
The point I replied to was about whether it made sense to flee to the city if climate change hits your farming community and my reply addresses that.
Griff, here is a link showing that Africa has 1250 coal fired power plants planned for the next decade. Griff, it might be an idea to do some research before you make any more claims.
https://principia-scientific.com/how-best-to-power-africa-in-the-future/
How dare you counter griff with actual facts.
Bill, the article doesn’t cite the source of the 1,250 number. I believe coal use in Africa will surge, but precise numbers seem to be unavailable.
It may make no sense to go to cities in the hope to find a job, and the people fleeiing are not landowners or farmers but working at farms for a slavery fee.
But it isn’t a question of climate but of economies.
Urbanization has been happening for at least the last 200 years.
I don’t think it’s a climate emergency more like normal human stupidity 🙂
.
Been happening for decades and called urbanization.
Griff the nutter has shown himself by sheer repetition to be someone totally f..cked in the head!
I dunno why people bother replying to his crap, all he does here each time is relieve his keyboard constipation in public.
“…World Bank shows climate change could force…”
Note the weasel word, could. Climate change is not forcing people to move, if anything, things are better in a lot of these places now thanks to more CO2 and increased harvests. It wasn’t climate change that forced the Irish migration to the US after the potato blight caused widespread starvation. But if that happened today it would surely be blamed on the mythical climate change emergency!
World Bank is just parrotting what CiA and Pentagon used to say in the 70 ies .
The only difference – they blamed global cooling 50 years ago.
This is just part of a bigger agenda as those words of the world bank are just going along with the threat /prediction of the World Economic Forum spot for the great reset – the one with the gay looking bearded man.
First they say “You will own nothing and you will love” (this can only be achieved with some global tools to circumvent democracy as,lets say Covid,AGW),
the next thing they claim is that 1 billion people eill be displaced by AGW.
Exactly. Agricultural production continues to improve, continuing a long term trend facilitated by human ingenuity, technological innovation, and additional CO2 to increase plant photosynthesis. Farmers can produce more food from less land, using less water than they could a hundred years ago. That has resulted in major economic shifts. In Europe and North America in the early 1800’s 90 percent of the population farmed. Now fewer than 10 percent do. That has generated a large migration from rural areas to cities where people generally have a higher standard of living.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/urbanization-last-500-years
It is estimated that another 330 million people will migrate from rural areas to cities by 2050, not because of
climate change“global warming” but improvement in agricultural efficiency.https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/urban-and-rural-population-2050?country=~OWID_WRL
Meanwhile malnourishment continues to decline worldwide for all the reasons above.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prevalence-of-undernourishment-in-developing-countries-since-1970
It should be noted that all of these gains in human welfare has required fossil fuels. The modern farm equipment steel is needs coal and runs on fossil fuels, fertilizer from natural gas, transportation of these increased yields to cities still needs fossil fuels, etc
stinkerp, relevant observational data simply confuses and angers those driven by ideology.
Behind the Schumer curtain….
Democrats maneuver behind the scenes to secure amnesty provisions in Biden’s $3.5T spending bill
Senate Democrats argue that legalizing 8 million migrants would make them automatically eligible for federal benefits, which would deeply impact the federal budget. That’s one of the key tests for shoehorning policies into the reconciliation process.
“A pathway to citizenship is compatible with reconciliation,” said a senior Democratic aide, who requested anonymity to discuss the behind-the-scenes maneuvering. “The act of adding people, many of whom already pay taxes, to the federal rolls will have an immediate and direct impact on the budget.”
Maybe the World Bank heard it from “Bloomberg Green”, who has an add on TV saying “climate change is everything”. The whole CAGW nonsense is a one-trick-pony that is looking a little weaker.
Surely the World Bank and the mainstream media can’t disapprove of economic development
Oh no?
It’s jobs and cash money that send people from the farms into the cities.
Yes!
Nothing to do with “climate change”.
People leave their place when it is no longer possible to live there (a very few members of the elites, though, have financial means to make a kind of nomadic, always touring life from exotic place to exotic place; but they are very few).
That bit of ground where we were born, where we grew, where lives the community that helped us grow up, can become a place where one cannot live any more: if working hard does not provide for a barely decent life, if work offer does not exist or ceased to exist; so, we leave because of misery. But in many places we leave because of violence: war, of prossecution (religious, ethnic, political, other…) tolerated or imposed by the government. In both cases, one leaves to preserve life.
It is a rather tortuous chain of causality trying to go back from war or misery to “climate change”. Everyone has forgotten such a tool as the Occam’s razor?
Yes it is!
Devastation from Storms Fuels Migration in Honduras – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
It really is sad how griff actually thinks a puff piece from a propaganda source is proof of anything other than his gullibility.
It really is sad you don’t attempt to refute any of the facts in the article.
and anyway, what isn’t propaganda to you? Except Watts?
Can’t read any facts is the article is pay-walled. So, what are the facts ?
The headline worth nothing but it’s not a climate question.
The New York Times is no less laughable than the Groaniad, griff. But then, I think you might just be aware of that. When we say evidence we don’t mean lazy, wholly biased journalism from the NYT…
“A big scoop it grandly published Tuesday about a “leaked” devastating report on global warming turns out to have been false.
The august Times acted as if the upcoming National Climate Assessment (NCA) was in danger of being cast into the darkness by the anti-warming trolls of the Trump administration. Luckily, or so we were made to think, some brave soul inside the bureaucracy bravely blew the whistle and gave a draft of the report to the Times, which promptly published it.
What a scoop!
The only problem: The draft report has been online since January. As Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller reported, there was no effort to stifle it at all, despite the Times quoting anonymous scientists saying “they fear that the Trump administration could change or suppress the report.” How can you suppress what’s already out?
As for “change,” well, all reports go through changes. That’s the nature of the bureaucratic beast. They’re edited, reedited, pared down, changed, amended, altered, reorganized and, yes, even rewritten to suit the politics of the day. This is not a scientific process — it’s a political one. And while the results are predictably political, it’s not as if it’s a process that was invented by Trump.
Even so, the Times seemed to suggest this is all being done in some nefarious way by the Trump administration to twist the report or soften it or even falsify it.
Actually, from what we’ve seen of past reports, it likely should be rewritten to reflect real science, diverging views and the emerging evidence that global warming science is fraught with outright fraud. By a law passed in the 1990s, the NCA is supposed to come out every four years. But, Patrick Michael, director of the Center for the Study of Science, notes: “There has only been three such documents produced to date, each horrible.”
Even so, the Times suggested that the suppressed draft report would be particularly devastating to global warming skeptics, who are “equally worried that the draft report, as well as the larger (National Climate Assessment), will be publicly released.”
Oops. On Wednesday, the Times was forced to correct its story.
“Correction: August 9, 2017…
N.Y. Times’ Bias Shows In Global Warming Report — What Else Is New? | Investor’s Business Daily (investors.com)
It’s the NYT, they gave up on reporting facts decades ago.
Anyway, Honduras being devastated by storms is nothing new. It’s been going on for as long as we have records.
It’s been going on for as long as we have records.
For rather longer, actually!
A storm first of all is weather, never heard ?
WOW!! Griffter, you found the exception that proves the rule!
If you continue to do some work, instead of merely drive-bys, you will soon be able to take off your dunce cap, come out of the corner and join the rest of the class! Try to avoid propaganda outlets like the NYT and the Grauniad, though. They completely negate any attempts to try and appear open-minded; rather they give the impression of fanatical ideology which we all know you are trying to dispel!
Storms have been devastating Honduras for as long as we have records.
It’s nothing new, and has nothing to do with non-existent climate change.
About all I got from what we can read is a 3rd world country has had problems with natural disasters …. and ????
Climate Change driving immigration?
Really?
Here are some other factors for immigration: How about the Mafia Suppressing/Extorting the Mexican people, and the Mafia being busy with drug trafficking and human trafficking?
Here is just one consequence of extremist/leftist Dem/Progs stealing the 2020 Election and perpetrating a coup d’etat.
Large Sections of the Border Wall Have Been REMOVED and Left WIDE OPEN Along Heavily Trafficked Drug Route in Southern Arizona
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/exclusive-large-sections-b…
The Mexican people are suffering of threats, killings and extortions by the Mexican Mafia, which has its own militia to fight even the government, and has bought local police and courts.
1) TRUMP was starving the Mafia of money, because fewer and fewer people were crossing the border.
“Wait in Mexico” was upheld by the US Supreme Court, simply because it happens to be US LAW
Many border crossers are engaged in drug and human trafficking, on which the Mafia makes $BILLIONS EACH YEAR, to continue its suppression and extortions of the Mexican people.
2) In-the-basement BIDEN opened the border wide open, to obtain millions of additional Dem/Prog voters for FUTURE elections.
However, at the same time, the Mafia grabbed a huge opportunity, by making $BILLIONS MORE THAN EVER with human trafficking and drug trafficking!!!
Thank you, Biden for screwing the Mexican, and the US people, who have to pay for all
your leftist-handler’s, fanaticism-inspired, pro-Dem/Prog follies.
Obama once said, after observing you in the White House: “He is a screw-up and should never be President”.
Biden, you are proving Obama right, every day; nice track record to add to your scrapbook of other misdeeds, such as sniffing little girls and boys, in public.
Here is PROOF of MAJOR Dem/Prog 2020 Election fraud in New York State and Pennsylvania
PREPARATION OF 288,000 MAIL-IN BALLOTS IN BETHPAGE, NY FOR USE IN PENNSYLVANIA MONTHS BEFORE THE ELECTION
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/preperation-of-288-000…
Mexican aunt of my friend was kidnapped, blindfolded and brought to be seated before a prepared document transferring ownership of a farm the aunt owned. Her blindfold was only lifted from one eye enough to see where to sign and could not see the entire document page. The gang had all the legal Title details involved and her personal identity data without needing to ask the owner for anything; a Notary was present working with the gang. After signing and being released somewhere the aunt took her children and fled with them to her sister’s house in the U.S.A.
That is awful, but par for the course.
The Mafia prey on the weak.
The police are in cahoots
gringojay,
My condolences to you and your aunt!
As the ruling elite in the US turns more and more criminal in their actions, we see them allying themselves with other crime organizations like the CCP and the drug cartels! And, of course, the corollary is that they must suppress the actions of lawful citizens and groups that do things like trying to enforce election laws and civil rights for all!
How appropriate to see the pictures from the Met Gala with AOC and other elites cavorting maskless in their outfits worth an average annual salary or more, while the plebeian waitstaff must wear masks as they scurry about trying to pamper to the privileged!
“World Bank report highlights purported likely internal migration of tens of millions of people within Algeria, Bangladesh, and Tunisia as a result of climate change.”
90% of Algerians live on the Mediterranean coast which accounts for 12% of the land, the rest is the Sahara desert. Not quite sure what internal migration they could physically do.
They are however currently experiencing a baby boom which is mainly due to better economics and a more peaceful society.
Tunisia is the same, most of the population are already in the three main cities, urbanisation rates are around 70%. Not quite sure where the world bank get’s it’s 10’s of millions of migrants from.
As for Bangladesh, disaster-induced migration is unfortunately part of living on a flood plain, this is nothing new it’s simple geography. Their climate is not changing for the worse.
“World Bank report highlights purported likely internal migration of tens of millions of people within Algeria, Bangladesh, and Tunisia as a result of climate change”
Well,… if by “climate change” is meant the Islamic State & its associates, plutocratic authoritarian governments, and the like…
Tunisia is experiencing increased soil aridity – even desertification in more places. This has livelihood implications and that contributes to “internal migration”
Tunisia governmental Institut Tunisien des Etudes Strategiques – Program Alimentaire Mondial released a long report in Dec. 2017 called “Revue Strategique sur: La Securite Alimentaire et Nutritionelle en Tunisie”.
Figure 8 shows that Tunisia funding of agriculture was greater in 2008-2010 than it was in 1990-1992. In fact Tunisia public expenditure on agriculture was at higher rates than other north Africa countries & mediterranean countries like Greece. Tunisia’s government is not neglecting it’s citizens.
Figure 12 shows that, like many countries, grain harvest yields per area has risen. However, in 2013 while the world average was 3,560 kg grain per hectare in Tunisia their 2013 grain yield average was only 1,756 kg grain per hectare (being even lower than the average of it’s neighbors).
Original Post (O.P.) writer does not bother to look deeper into why the World Bank is concerning itself with Tunisia (among other places). WUWT readers should think critically about all the O.P. that appear here & not assume correlations (ex: global average yields) presented are end points irrefutably making the O.P. a closed point of discussion.
“Figure 12 shows that, like many countries, grain harvest yields per area has risen. However, in 2013 while the world average was 3,560 kg grain per hectare in Tunisia their 2013 grain yield average was only 1,756 kg grain per hectare (being even lower than the average of it’s neighbors).”
If your comment is directed at me, I didn’t even mention crop yields, but even so citing one years figures as proof of something is meaningless.
The very next year 2014 Tunisia produced more than it’s neighbour Algeria, in 2015 about the same, 2016 and 2017 produced more again, so what happened there?
Compared to the 1960’s Tunisia has gained 1.22 tonnes per hectare.
Do you have data on Tunisian internal migration?
So far I’m not finding a source exactly comparing grain yields for Algeria and Tunesia for 2014. A reference source would be of interest.
As for grain yields in Tunesia increasing from my cited 2013 data: this is consistent with grain yields increasing. Which is just as they had up until the data ended in my cited Tunesian report’s own chart. [I did not reproduce everything in that Tunesian report.] How come the global upward yield trend is mostly because the “What happened” = agronomic factors (seed selection, seed priming, precision planting, uniform stand emergence, targeted irrigation, fertilization, pest control)
I consider my previous Tunesian comments to be regarding the O.P. & made that clear by naming the O.P. in my last paragraph above. (Whose author attempted to posit that grain yields are doing stupendously so, “Sorry” WUWT readers shouldn’t think twice about places like Tunesia.)
I initially posted some colored charts from among several in a study written in Korean. The red & red based tints are indicating aridity conditions; as far as I know scientific observations are still reporting Tunesia has not reversed the encroaching aridity – talk is generally about a trend toward desertification.
I have not attempted to compile data on internal migration anywhere, let alone Tunesia. Thus, I am not claiming “millions” of Tunesians are internally migrating in any precise time period.
Tunisia’s encroaching aridity means more widespread water issues for grain crops. Quote: “… during wheat spikelet development … significant … number … [of] … apical florets … abort”. As per “Of floral fortune: tinkering with the grain yield potential of cereal crops” which points out “… increased grain yield mainly by increasing the number of grains … in each inflorescence …. [varying in the] … number of spikelets per spike and number of fertile florets per spikelet…”. (English free full text available on-line & a nice read with clear illustrations from a Japan-German team.).
I’ve highlighted Tunisia’s water issues (as illustrated by trend toward aridity & increased desertification) and here tie the above paragraph (about yield) to the self explanatory title of the following (2020) report : “Suppressed ABA signal transduction in the spike promotes sucrose use in the stem and reduces grain number in wheat under water stress”. ABA is a plant phyto-hormone (abscisic acid) with a naturally changing pattern of activity throughout a plant’s life cycle – apparently water issues for wheat at certain times of development cause the hormone to be less active than ideally in a specific context. (English free full text available online.)
(This could explain a year when Algerian grain yield averages were lower than Tunisia’s. Meaning the Algerian grain plantings had more “water stress” at key times.
How can this possibly be? Haven’t we been assured by various trolls that models are proof of whatever climate “scientists” want them to prove?
Immigration reform in lieu of emigration reform, social justice in lieu of justice, renewables in lieu of reliables, are driving immigration. Diversity (i.e. class-based dogma), inequity, and exclusion are driving immigration.
See this chart for the USA:
Farm Labor: Number of Farms and Workers by Decade
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Farm_Labor/fl_frmwk.php
In 1910 there were fewer than 93 M people; today the Nation is approaching 4 times that number (~332 M in 2020). While there has been about an 80% reduction in workers, the amount of food produced has increase amazingly.
The story of this farming/food accomplishment is one of innovation with implements and energy replacing people/mules/horses. This process continues.
This transition from physical labor to less physical demanding activities in the USA cannot be blamed on Climate Change™ or the United Nations.
[The 1st comment by Joao is also relevant.]
Agenda 21 wants to herd the proles into mega – cities so the World Bank should be delighted with the migration of people from the countryside to the cities.
However the gains in crops to record levels are driven by industrialization of agriculture,, and I suspect that it is the peasant farmers that are flocking to the cities driven by loss of jobs. A sort of re-run of the Highland clearances which were a response to our industrialisation. When they find that life in third world cities starved of meaningful and affordable energy they will sell their souls to the people smugglers to ship them to the UK.
Of course Boris has a cunning plan to stop that.
When Boris’ ruinous energy policies reduce UK to the status of Venezuela they won’t want to come because life will be much better in Algiers or Tunis .
Likewise Joe is wailing from the same minaret to ultimately render the US toxic to any would be migrant with any common sense
Agenda 21 is a conspiracy theory.
and anyway, I thought it was Agenda 2030 now? being as 2021 has arrived without any of the prophesied NWO effects…
What conspiration ?
Griff, your ignorance and inability to discover information is both amusing and annoying.
First source on a search for Agenda 21 –
“Agenda 21 is a non binding action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[1] It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. One major objective of the Agenda 21 initiative is that every local government should draw its own local Agenda 21. Its aim initially was to achieve global sustainable development by 2000, with the “21” in Agenda 21 referring to the original target of the 21st century.[2]”
[Wikipedia]
Conspiracy theory?
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21
Agenda 21
UNCED, 1992
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
And as you have been told before, it’s a plan for the 21st century, NOT the year 2021.
Go to the link, download the PDF and get informed.
Shark, that’s a wacko right-wing conspiracy theory website you’re linking to there. Oh, it’s the UN you say? Well, someone must have hacked it.
Griff is constantly being proven wrong and that has never deterred him nor has he ever admitted to being wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. That’s why I think he’s actually a plant. If you wanted to make the greens look bad, griff is exactly how to do it.
If you’re not careful, griff will accuse you of never trying to refute with facts.
It morphed into “Tax the Rich” gowns worn by AOC. Didn’t they inform the trolls ahead of time?
I wonder who paid the US$30,000+ per ticket for AOC to attend?
Hi Griff, if you are Griff and not merely a fake-bot.
Here is an agenda that I picked out at random
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
also facebook says its real and good so it must be . Amyway I always thought agenda 21 was the ghastly utopia of year 2100 that they are preparing. like like 1984 but without the fun part of it.
Our resident Black Knight strikes yet again.
It is fairly well known that the concept of a ‘conspiracy theory’ was specifically invented to label any story that the inventors wanted to discredit. That you yourself label a well-documented UN agenda as a conspiracy theory is hilarious.
It’s such a big conspiracy that they wrote a book and have a web page.
They even publish a list of their members.
What is it with progressives and their belief that everything they don’t want to believe in is a conspiracy.
“What is it with progressives and their belief that everything they don’t want to believe in is a conspiracy.”
This one is even crazier: Agenda 21 is exactly what they WANT but it’s STILL a conspiracy theory. What does it say that they have to deny an explicit agenda to accomplish their desired?
Everything is a conspiracy theory until it actually happens. Remember, Hitler gave Chamberlain absolute assurances that he was not going to war.
Putin says the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is a brilliant conspiracy theory, while he is crediting Joseph Stalin with managing to delay operation Barbarossa by 2 years, and that he was a brilliant strategist….
You can go to prison in Russia today for stating otherwise.
It’s already happened.
“Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past”.
“Climate denier” today = gulag inmate tomorrow.
Quote:”Climate change is a powerful driver of internal migration because of its impacts on people’s livelihoods and loss of livability in highly exposed locations,” write….”
How to unravel that…
None of this difficult, except for bankers, climate scientists and politicians.
But because they have all the money, power & control, everyone else fawns to them and imagines that they know what Trapped Heat actually is – while digging for crumbs off the banker’s table at, you guessed it, landfills around Big Cities
Those people are cruel heartless monsters, yet try to hide the fact behind sympathy, good intentions and relentless buck passing
The actual defining characteristic which (unlike above posited “low soil organic matter”) is the definition of a desert is an area of land that cumulatively receives annual rainfall in separate events that total less than 10 inches (25 centimeters) of precipitation.
The world bank got into the poverty business. Expect that they will find poverty upon poverty. Like rights activist constantly demanding new rights for marginalized minority/sub group/social tribes like they grew on trees.
The world bank must find or characterize what they find, as poverty. Of course, it doesn’t hurt when you can blame climate change and jump onto that cash cow.
Lots of money being syphoned from everywhere we find money. Government’s taxing, businesses profits, banks billion dollar quarters. And we’re making the poor as fast as we can, so we have someone to spend all that money on. It’s a heck of a world.
How clever of the World Bank to take a tread that has been going on for a couple of centuries and claim it’s due to climate change.
And their reason, that farming will become more difficult, would produce the opposite effect. People have to eat, if farming is more difficult, it will require more people to produce the needed food, not less. Or people would starve. And they starve in the cities first.
Sorry, World Bank and Mainstream Media, Climate Change Not Driving Immigration
It’s Driving People Bonkers.
Most of the people that migrating out of their countries, are fleeing the conditions created by failed states. These were created by top-down leadership with no clue to the on ground conditions of their populations.
The leadership has no clue how to fix the problems affecting their people, nor the inclination. They are solely concerned about themselves.
This appears to be a microcosm of many governing bodies in the world today.
Throughout history the closer the governance is to the people and their problems the better the peoples conditions. Likewise, the further away (or above) the worse-off their people live. These conditions are responsible for the migrating populations that we see today.
Venezuela is a great example. One fifth of the total population has left the country for a better life.
With three former U.S. Presidents welcoming Afghan refugees to the U.S., we’ll see if they hand out sandals, shorts, and T-shirts as winter clothing in light of climate change. Try not to weird them out too much at the outset.
Leftist, anti-human ideology is driving mass migration today. Everywhere leftists are in charge people are fleeing. And yes, leftist ideology includes islam, the original anti-human ideology.
From the article: “As explained in Climate at a Glance: Crop Production, almost every nation on Earth is benefiting from steadily increasing crop yields as the Earth modestly warms.”
And as the Earth modestly cools (temperatures down 0.5C since 2016).
Every country in the world that has embraced modern technology for farming has seen the rural workforce shrink and people leave to find work in cities. For family based farms inevitably the next generation is better educated and wants to use their intellect in office type work or simply to live near city facilities such as entertainment. Its got nothing to do with climate change.
Most migrants from Africa are economic migrants. I recall my first wife, Ethiopian, arrived in Australia was surprised that the streets were not paved with gold, we both had to work for a living and the costs of living were very high. Perception is an interesting thing.
Economic migrants, more and more created by climate change policy
No, mostly corruption.
Same thing.
The only thing about climate change and refugees is climate change POLICY creating refugees
By keeping people in poverty
Payback will be a bitch, Griff
Clymate refugees = rich American seniors flocking to Florida and rich German seniors flocking to Maldives.
So UN is right!
How does the group “Climatological” differ from the groups “Hydrological” and “Meteorological?”