[...] Some experts estimate that climate change could force between 150 and 300 million people to find a new place to live by the middle of this century, though there is considerable uncertainty about the amount. Finding suitable locations to house them will be a significant impediment. As Michael Gerrard explained, "part of the problem is scale. If we're talking about millions of people having to be on the move, it just doesn't work."
In the U.S., there are very few habitable places that aren't already occupied by homes, businesses, or agriculture, or preserved as park lands or forests. Meanwhile, rural areas would provide few opportunities for migrants to find employment and rebuild their lives.
Instead, Gerrard suggested moving people from high-risk areas to cities whose populations are shrinking, such as Detroit, Michigan. He sees cities' potential for vertical development, energy-efficient buildings, and public transportation as a way to sustainably host climate migrants.
What if refugees from Caribbean islands don't want to live in Detroit?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 07 2018, @05:01AM (3 children)
And you seem to be projecting. For all this complexity and difficulty, a lot of people seem to have no trouble projecting an air of false certainty about their predictions.
I find it interesting that you can't even show that this ozone hole is human-caused. The model and research indicates that it is likely that human produced CFCs and other ozone producing chemicals have had an effect, but your description of the ozone hole's recent dynamics is based on opinion, not actual science. It may be a new creation of our Industrial Age, or the latest iteration of five million years of ozone holes that come and go. So sure, the ozone hole might be coming back because ozone destroying chemicals declined over the past three decades, or because it naturally waxes and wanes.
Observation bias is a huge problem with climate research. Just because we see a phenomenon now when we look for the first time doesn't mean that the phenomenon occurred for the first time. That's one example of the complexity which routinely gets ignored.
I'm interested in facts. Are you going to come up with a few, or merely continue to tell me what I think?
Moving on, the point of planning is either to have a better outcome or insure against a negative consequence in the future. I don't think such of schemes that make matters worse in the present while doing little to prepare for the future. For example, Germany's Energiewende has doubled the cost of electricity for its residents, while doing little to reduce Germany's CO2 emissions. Or the Kyoto climate treaty which has mandated stringent reductions of greenhouse gasses emissions in the developed world, but had no consequence to overall emissions.
These aren't plans. They're virtue signalling.
Do you have integrity to compromise? Constructing a ludicrous straw man doesn't strike me as promising.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 07 2018, @07:03PM (2 children)
I guess time will tell, with any luck we'll be able to adapt in time and idiots like you will go around saying "see we didn't need to freak out decades ago!". The rest of us will roll our eyes and pray the next generation is better.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 07 2018, @09:48PM
And then
Because apparently the current "smart" generation can't understand how to present a science-based argument.
(Score: 2) by gottabeme on Tuesday January 09 2018, @04:41AM
In other words, you will continue to believe what you believe now, regardless of future evidence. Sounds like religion to me.