They will turn into refugees. That's part of why we expect hundreds of millions of climate refugees in the coming decades.
Though given our reaction to the current wave of refugees, we will blame the refugees for their own predicament and probably George Soros, as is tradition, long before we accept any blame ourselves.
I suspect you may be right that the popular option will be to close the border. I do not agree however, that it is the better option.
Interesting way to describe people fleeing war.
A crop failure might be a natural disaster, but lots of other causes of starvation that are not.
Main point is, if you’re seeking refuge, try to put a clear-cut reason down rather than something debatable, but sensible, like absolute poverty.
This will certainly happen in a scenario where there are massive refugee populations elsewhere in the world.
Nothing “simply” about it.
One million people is a single city. You do have a problem if one million people are suddenly relocating. It has happened before for war, natural disasters or other reasons.
Migrating a billion people is not a thing, for the simple fact that there isn't any human settlement any close to approaching a billion people. If you're talking about the scale of a whole continent, migratory flux span over a lifetime and are not homogeneous.
Yet.
But in the case is the fuel they burn, right? India is projected to become the 2nd biggest producer of CO2 (behind China) this decade.
Also, I go around here and gasoline is so cheap that people don't care about waste. Drivers let their cars with the motor on while they go to buy some small thing to eat or drink.
[1]: https://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?commodity=milk&graph...
Given the absolute mess migration was out of Syria into Europe (and that was comparatively minor) I think it's going to be unpleasant.
Once it starts it'll snowball as well instead of an orderly evacuation it'll be pell-mell.
Sometimes think it would be nice to have a single rational world government so that we could deal with these things on a species level.
Of course if we had a single rational world government for any length of time we wouldn't be in this mess.
No, you would be in another mess.
Alternatively, take the way North Korea is run and make it global. This is the only way it could work.
As a third alternative, take the way the EU is run, and make it global.
What are the problems? There is way too much diversity for a single entity to handle the various aspects.
Gut response is wherever is currently the hottest but that may not be the case since there are a bunch of factors that will effect it.
Good report on it here.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2018/03/19/gro...
Direct Link: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/2... (PDF)
For instance, climate change played some role in the current Venezuelan refugee crisis (the one that has Trump separating families and housing people in camps under overpasses, or bussing them to sanctuary cities).
Today, the main problem is that their government started to collapse in 2017, so they are unable to supply food to their population.
Why did the government start to collapse? Well, they have seen lower crop yields in recent years, which means more food imports, which means they are more vulnerable to embargoes, etc.
It only has data to 2016, but this site shows across the board agricultural production collapses in 2015 and 2016.
https://www.ceicdata.com/en/venezuela/agricultural-productio...
The government went into disarray in 2017.
In 2018 (and maybe earlier; tldr) US sanctions cut off oil revenue. The sanctions are due to terrorism, corruption, human trafficking, and human rights violations, which are, again symptoms of a collapsing government:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/IF10715.pdf
You may also remember tortilla riots a few years back when the price of corn spiked. That probably led to some migration.
Arguably, and famines that led to refugees in the last 10-20 years are due to climate change.
The issue is that we’re at a tipping point where they will become more common.
Spirited debate is the best thing about this place.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis#Statis...
Taking 1.5 million migrants with a population of 82 million, if the UK (my country) had done the same ratio that would have been 1.2 million, best figure I can find for UK is <20 thousand.
One thing I do wonder is what western culture will look like in a hundred years if the world bank figures are right (140-200 million displaced people).
So it's a valid question as long as it's not a veiled "will there be too many brown people".
It's interesting that you can't really broach it as a question though without it been implied that racism is involved, if you can't debate a subject without been accused of racism then you leave all debate of that subject to racists since they may not care about been accused of racism.
Too many people use race as a placeholder for culture and vice versa (same with religion).
Honestly things would be better if both sides would stop hurling slurs at each other and actually debate the issues but I figure it serves them to have this kind of fight as it gains both sides followers.
I'm seeing more and more of that kind of balkanization in the UK and it's worrying, Brexit has opened some pretty nasty wounds that may not heal in my lifetime.
I am keeping a close eye on the proposed 'Free Ports'.
>"Can "free ports" spark a post-Brexit manufacturing boom? Jonty Bloom reports from Teesside, which plans to become the UK's newest free port, offering customs-free imports and hoping to bring back manufacturing jobs."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46349717
>"For each Free Zone, the area covered and the defined entry and exit points shall be determined by the Member State. The perimeter and the entry and exit points must be under customs supervision. Member State must communicate to the commission details of the Free Zones in operation.
>All Free Zones shall be enclosed. Persons, goods and means of transport entering or leaving Free Zones may be subject to customs controls."
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-3001-speci...
Steve Bannon has this book he’s always talking about, The Camp of the Saints. It’s the clearest and most concise guide for how they see the climate future rolling out. (This is also why I bristle when they get called climate change deniers. They’re not, they just reached different conclusions.)
https://observer.com/2018/05/the-insanity-of-alt-right-banno...
(Apologies, I know everyone wants to keep this a politics-light zone; this isn’t off topic.)
It's story about brown and black skinned others destroying western civilization with immigration. The motive is racist. The tone of the book is very passionate and overly emotional.
Here is short preface Jean Raspail wrote to his book:
> I HAD WANTED TO WRITE a lengthy preface to explain my position and show that this is no wild-eyed dream; that even if the specific action, symbolic as it is, may seem farfetched, the fact remains that we are inevitably heading for something of the sort. We need only glance at the awesome population figures predicted for the year 2000, i.e., twenty-eight years from now: seven billion people, only nine hundred million of whom will be white. But what good would it do? I should at least point out, though, that many of the texts I have put into my characters’ mouths or pens—editorials, speeches, pastoral letters, laws, news stories, statements of every description—are, in fact, authentic. Perhaps the reader will spot them as they go by. In terms of the fictional situation I have presented, they become all the more revealing.