As I have noted in this morning‘s video, there are very many dimensions to the climate change crisis that many people seem keen to ignore, contrary to absolutely anything that might approximate to common sense. Amongst these issues is one to which I refer quite often, which is that of climate migration.
The Prime Minister of Barbados, Mia Mottley, who has been an enormously effective advocate for emerging economies on the importance of the developed nations of the world providing appropriate funding to those emerging economies so that they might tackle climate change issues, said after the deeply disappointing close of the COP 29 negotiations:
If I can't live because I can't farm because I don't have access to water … I'm going to shift where I'm living from. So the volume of climate migration will wake up those who have been slow to see that this must be a win-win.
Mia Mottley's logic is very obviously correct. A person without water, either for themselves or to sustain the farming on which they are dependent, cannot remain where they are in the world and will have to move if they are to survive. Why so many in the world appear to be in denial about this when, simultaneously, they are obsessed about the current quite low levels of refugee migration that is taking place worldwide is extremely hard to fathom.
This issue has recently been commented upon by my Green New Deal colleague, Colin Hines, and an old mutual friend of ours, Jonathan Porritt. Jonathan was one of the founders of Friends of the Earth and the Green Party, a number of decades ago now. They have both shared concerns over population issues and the threat that this has presented to sustainability for a long time.
I have not always shared all their opinions, and there is absolutely no reason why that should be the case. However, they are seeking to draw attention to this issue in this paper, and because it may be of interest to some people here, I thought it appropriate to share it to broaden the discussion on this massively important issue which our politicians do, at present, seem all too eager to ignore.
The file can be downloaded from here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thank you for sharing.
This indicates strongly that some of us are all too happy to pee into wind and why COP29 and its $300 billion is not enough.
It goes back to a question you once raised that is imprinted on my skull forever – a very simple question – ‘Why can we not have the money that we need’ to sort out our problems? Note the word ‘need’ which I have always in its strictest sense.
Given that we live in a fiat money system it still remains the key question. If money is scarce it is because someone somewhere is making it so for some reason. It has nothing to do with God, the tides or magic. Money is in the human domain for sure.
Yet we can print unheard of amounts of money just for money’s sake – look at 2008.
Hopeless.
Agreed
With whole articles like this one by Rafael Behr,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/20/labour-tax-rises-farmers-keir-starmer-rachel-reeves
devoted to maintaining the myth that taxes finance public spending, it’s clear there is a long way to go. I’ll add him to my list, for a challenging letter about money.
I can never work out whether articles like his are founded on mendacity or ignorance.
‘Note the word ‘need’ which I have always interpreted in its strictest sense.’
Is what I meant to say……..DUH………..!!!!!
Western politicians are too keen to play the ” we must stop the influx” card, blaming neighbouring countries for the problem. Think the USA and UK.
As you say the reality is that moving away from a threat to your very existence is a basic human instinct.
The West needs to wake up fast and help in a non patronising way. Certainly no aid tied to you have to buy our goods.
I wonder if what is happening in low income countries today is being conflated with the migration from farmland to the towns in 18th century England. These low income territories want to get richer of course and that’s done by being more productive, but the people displaced from farmland being more efficient are going to migrate to where the opportunities are if allowed to.
Have you read a word of what that piece was about or would you rather make stuff up?
And do you realise that almost no one wants to move country in reality? It’s an incredibly diffocult thing to do if done permanently. So what is your agenda?
I met Jonathan Porritt about 40 years ago when I -with a few others- started a branch of the Ecology party. It later became the Greens. I left after a few years. It is hard for self funding small parties. I put some efforts into another party for a few years. I came across something called Social Credit and when MMT came along, it seemed familiar.
It is good to see the recent rise in support for the Greens and just up the road in Bristol, win a parliamentary seat. With PR they would do even better. People in other parties support much of their program.
What about internal migration?
This map shows the areas of East Yorkshire which could be under water by 2050.
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/east-yorkshire-towns-villages-disappear-5522141
When will people start to realise and move out of the area? Where will they go? What will the economic impact be?
And, to yesterday’s question, how much property currently owned by pension funds will become valueless?
In 2002 I moved house in East Yorkshire and tried to get house insurance. One company told me “we’ve stopped insuring houses in the DN postcode area. ”
The whole of the area from the coast to Doncaster is under flood threat – and 22 years ago one insurance company was already taking protective measures not to be caught out!
The fens don’t look too good either
Ely is fine
It’s just an island, again
Yes, much of the migration will be internal, climate change will make regions in most countries unlivable, and it will be a lot less difficult to migrate in-country than try to cross borders. E.g much of Florida will move elsewhere in the USA. And in that case many of the refugees will be elderly: https://www.aarp.org/home-family/your-home/info-2024/washed-away.html
Thank you and well said, Richard.
One can add war, too, in the shorter term. As the west indulges Israel, is Europe ready for the wave of refugees?
A significant proportion of the world population farm on river deltas and it will take a sea level of only a few feet to contaminate the soil with sea water. In fact it has already happening.