Climate Change | UN Report: Code Red for humanity

4bars said:
Disgusting

and also,who says that europe will not be the climate refugees? has a you would be the first begging

No one even less you, know how the climate change will affect each area. Is not global warming, is climate change and some areas will fry while others will froze while mostly all coastal areas (most of the population) will be under water
Click to expand...

From all the maps I’ve seen, places like Northern Europe will be the least impacted. Nobody knows (obviously!) for sure but compared to a lot of places with more extreme climates, that seems to be the consensus. Obviously coastal areas will be lost but I don’t see anything wrong with stating the truth: the likelihood is more refugees will be headed towards those nations, especially since they’re better equipped to deal with the crisis.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
Not all over the world but for larger parts of it yes. If Europe closes it boarders to Middle East, Afrika and certain parts of Asia we can be self sufficient (increasing the efficency in agriculture in parts of eastern Europe and Ukraine in particular will do this). If we try to help as many climate refugees as possible and open the boarders then we would not have enough space, food etc to keep everyone that will come satisfied leading to sivil unrest etc. Timeframe is dependent on what parts of the world one looks at, the policy regarding climate refugees the EU/UN will take and what happens with the government in major countries.
Click to expand...

agreed, lets just let all the non whiteys die. europe ftw woop woop
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
Isn’t he just being realistic about what will happen? He’s not saying it’s ideal or moral.
Click to expand...

i dunno, maybe. it just read a little off to me. basically, if we close ourselves off to those suffering we will be fine, if we try and help them, then we'll all be fecked. i don't think it's as black and white as that anyway.
 
stepic said:
i dunno, maybe. it just read a little off to me. basically, if we close ourselves off to those suffering we will be fine, if we try and help them, then we'll all be fecked. i don't think it's as black and white as that anyway.
Click to expand...


I agree it sounds horrible but I don’t think he was promoting it as a strategy or saying it was morally right, just giving an honest, harsh assessment of the situation.

Think it’s a bit harsh to turn that in to he just wants the whites to live’ as I highly doubt that’s a view the poster holds.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
I agree it sounds horrible but I don’t think he was promoting it as a strategy or saying it was morally right, just giving an honest, harsh assessment of the situation.

Think it’s a bit harsh to turn that in to he just wants the whites to live’ as I highly doubt that’s a view the poster holds.
Click to expand...

the way it's worded certainly suggests his view is to close up shop to survive.
 
Silva said:
i can't wait for all the poors to respect our decision to murder them and not justifiably kill us all
Click to expand...

The scenario put forward had the borders closed by European militaries. Refugees aren’t going to overrun armies.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
The scenario put forward had the borders closed by European militaries. Refugees aren’t going to overrun armies.
Click to expand...
yeah true western militaries have shown an amazing ability to kill and control poor people over the last 2 decades they'll stand literally zero chance and won't easily get access to weapons because thankfully we haven't been mass producing them and selling to any psycho with two pennies in their pocket

and surely a major climate caused mass immigration event will have nothing on the recent immigrant crisis that europe dealt with so easily

and it'll be even easier because there's going to be no one in europe sabotaging the armies and helping immigrants over difficult terrains for a few quid, it'll be so easy
 
Silva said:
yeah true western militaries have shown an amazing ability to kill and control poor people over the last 2 decades they'll stand literally zero chance and won't easily get access to weapons because thankfully we haven't been mass producing them and selling to any psycho with two pennies in their pocket

surely a major climate caused mass immigration event will have nothing on the recent immigrant crisis that europe dealt with so easily
Click to expand...


Yes, they have??? What they haven’t shown is an ability to occupy other nations. In a conventional border stand off millions of barely supplied, poorly organised and equipped refugees would stand no chance against an army which was adopting a defensive position. Give me examples of Western militaries defending clearly defined zones (in which the space they’re occupying is supporting them) and they’ve been overrun by guerilla forces.

People with ak47s and roadside bombs can be effective in certain wars, but not as one of aggression in which they are assaulting a front. They wouldn’t stand a single chance in hell.

The recent migrant crisis was dealt with very differently and isn’t comparable to a scenario where Europe set up on the military defensive.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
Yes, they have??? What they haven’t shown is an ability to occupy other nations. In a conventional border stand off millions of barely supplied, poorly organised and equipped refugees would stand no chance against an army which was adopting a defensive position. Give me examples of Western militaries defending clearly defined zones (in which the space they’re occupying is supporting them) and they’ve been overrun by guerilla forces.

People with ak47s and roadside bombs can be effective in certain wars, but not as one of aggression in which they are assaulting a front. They wouldn’t stand a single chance in hell.

The recent migrant crisis was dealt with very differently and isn’t comparable to a scenario where Europe set up on the military defensive.
Click to expand...
we've thrown everything into a very small area of the world and all we've done is set it on fire, a major immigrant crisis from bangladesh, pakistan, india etc. will be on a such a different scale and so wide that unless we instigate a mass scale genocide it'll do nothing, and if we instigate a wide scale genocide europe will go to war with itself again because i and a lot of other people would rather die fighting our armies than let them murder billions of people

it's a poorly thought out and psychotic idea, it has no basis in reality and will never work
 
stepic said:
the way it's worded certainly suggests his view is to close up shop to survive.
Click to expand...

Silva said:
we've thrown everything into a very small area of the world and all we've done is set it on fire, a major immigrant crisis from bangladesh, pakistan, india etc. will be on a such a different scale and so wide that unless we instigate a mass scale genocide it'll do nothing, and if we instigate a wide scale genocide europe will go to war with itself again because i for one would rather die fighting our armies than let them murder billions of people

it's a poorly thought out and psychotic idea, it has no basis in reality and will never work
Click to expand...

I think you overestimate how many people would be like you. Most in Europe would stay quiet and keep their heads down, trying to protect what they have and their families. Genocides have been tolerated before by societies when people are afraid and thinking only about their families. Only a small amount of people would ‘rebel’ against the existing order trying to hold the borders, we can already see now how many people are anti-immigration when immigration isn’t even remotely a threat to their lifestyle. Imagine if it was on the scale you’re talking about? Most wouldn’t accept it at all.

Europe closing its borders if there was an emergency situation is realistic and likely what would happen. People would panic and go on the defensive. European governments would look to protect their own situation and power, not help other people.

But yes, it is a psychotic idea to allow that, but sadly it’s what I honestly think humans would revert to. It would be pretty much every country for itself, scrabbling about for safe harbour.
 
4bars said:
Disgusting

and also,who says that europe will not be the climate refugees? has a you would be the first begging

No one even less you, know how the climate change will affect each area. Is not global warming, is climate change and some areas will fry while others will froze while mostly all coastal areas (most of the population) will be under water
Click to expand...

I did not say that we should close the boarders, but that there is a questions of two bad scenarios. Where the moral one being to help as many as we can and let them come into Europe while at the same time understanding that this will lower our standard of living, or the egosentric scenario where Europe closeses its boarders (Turkey and the mediterranean) thus ensuring that Europeans can more or less continue with their lives as they were.

Southern parts of Europe with large parts of southern Spain and Italy and parts of Greece will experience desertification and becoming unhabitable for large populations without external resources. Coincidentally these are the parts of Spain and Italy that got the lowest income per capita compared to their average citizen.

This is not facts, but the most likely outcome based on the current models.
 
stepic said:
agreed, lets just let all the non whiteys die. europe ftw woop woop
Click to expand...

Not my opinion, but what i think will happen. Europe has already shown its reluctance to let people crossing over the sea from Africa or refugees from conflicts in the middle east come into Europe. And with the scaringly reminiscent of 1930s right wing movement currently blossoming around in different European countries...

Personal opinion is that we help those we can help, wether it being here or there.
What we should do on a global scale is preparing for living in a world with more volatile weather, because it is far to let to stop this:
1. GMOing edible plants that can be grown under harsher condition with less dependency on water or shifting temperatures.
2. Stop using the insane amounts of water in clothingproduction (India).
3. Basically anything that can make food and water accessible in certain areas of the world.
 
nickm said:
I don’t know how you close borders across a continental landmass to millions of migrants. And if sea levels rise, flooding coastal European cities, maybe the migration won’t be all one way.
Click to expand...

Climate refugees due to lack of water, food etc will happen long before people start fleeing earopean cities due to the rising sealevel.

Turkey, Russia and the Mediterranean.
 
It's not going to be a single biblical event where tens upon tens of thousands of people are displaced from one huge landmass and turn up at the border of the unaffected developed countries. It's going to be a slow grind where more and more of the world becomes uncomfortable to live in due to episodes of heat, wind, water or a combination of all three. It's not going to discriminate between developed and developing regions or wealthy and poor areas either. Some of the most desirable areas in the world will lose their appeal as they lose land to the sea, experience regular strong weather systems and extreme temperatures.

There seems to be an ignorant idea of "we'll be alright" from a lot of first world countries when in reality the middle classes are just as likely to find themselves looking to emigrate in 25/30 years time as their quality of life is impacted negatively by climate change and good luck to them selling their property to fund their move.
 
Pexbo said:
It's not going to be a single biblical event where tens upon tens of thousands of people are displaced from one huge landmass and turn up at the border of the unaffected developed countries. It's going to be a slow grind where more and more of the world becomes uncomfortable to live in due to episodes of heat, wind, water or a combination of all three. It's not going to discriminate between developed and developing regions or wealthy and poor areas either. Some of the most desirable areas in the world will lose their appeal as they lose land to the sea, experience regular strong weather systems and extreme temperatures.

There seems to be an ignorant idea of "we'll be alright" from a lot of first world countries when in reality the middle classes are just as likely to find themselves looking to emigrate in 25/30 years time as their quality of life is impacted negatively by climate change and good luck to them selling their property to fund their move.
Click to expand...
I think you are right up to a point. But slow building environmental stresses can trigger immediate “biblical events” too. There’s how rapid population growth and lack of carrying capacity was a factor in the Rwandan genocide, and the environmental stresses that supposedly contributed to the Syria civil war, and that migration. I think we’ll see a lot more of this.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
Climate refugees due to lack of water, food etc will happen long before people start fleeing earopean cities due to the rising sealevel.

Turkey, Russia and the Mediterranean.
Click to expand...

The availability of drinking water is already a major problem in some parts of the world and this will progressively worsen year on year. Considering that 70% of the earth is water, the amount available for drinking is a tiny fraction of one percent.
 
Buster15 said:
The availability of drinking water is already a major problem in some parts of the world and this will progressively worsen year on year. Considering that 70% of the earth is water, the amount available for drinking is a tiny fraction of one percent.
Click to expand...

Major Cities in India will struggle/s.

So those that prophesized that WW3 will start over water resources might be on to something.
 
SquishyMcSquish said:
From all the maps I’ve seen, places like Northern Europe will be the least impacted. Nobody knows (obviously!) for sure but compared to a lot of places with more extreme climates, that seems to be the consensus. Obviously coastal areas will be lost but I don’t see anything wrong with stating the truth: the likelihood is more refugees will be headed towards those nations, especially since they’re better equipped to deal with the crisis.
Click to expand...

Fosu-Mens said:
I did not say that we should close the boarders, but that there is a questions of two bad scenarios. Where the moral one being to help as many as we can and let them come into Europe while at the same time understanding that this will lower our standard of living, or the egosentric scenario where Europe closeses its boarders (Turkey and the mediterranean) thus ensuring that Europeans can more or less continue with their lives as they were.

Southern parts of Europe with large parts of southern Spain and Italy and parts of Greece will experience desertification and becoming unhabitable for large populations without external resources. Coincidentally these are the parts of Spain and Italy that got the lowest income per capita compared to their average citizen.

This is not facts, but the most likely outcome based on the current models.
Click to expand...

The one seemed to me to close any access to the refugees, thats why I didn't like it. Then which standards of living are we talking about? there will be no standards of living at that point. World will be chaos

Then about the desertification. Again, is not global warming, is climate change. Some areas will get very hot and others very cold and it not necessary mean that will go the ones close the equator, it will depend on the air currents (artic vortex for example) and the sea currents and their disruption. Some theories speaks that europe will be frozen for example
 
4bars said:
The one seemed to me to close any access to the refugees, thats why I didn't like it. Then which standards of living are we talking about? there will be no standards of living at that point. World will be chaos

Then about the desertification. Again, is not global warming, is climate change. Some areas will get very hot and others very cold and it not necessary mean that will go the ones close the equator, it will depend on the air currents (artic vortex for example) and the sea currents and their disruption. Some theories speaks that europe will be frozen for example
Click to expand...


think this is right.

Last winter we had -28F one day.
The forecast is lots of snow and similar very low temps here in Minnesota.
 
4bars said:
The one seemed to me to close any access to the refugees, thats why I didn't like it. Then which standards of living are we talking about? there will be no standards of living at that point. World will be chaos

Then about the desertification. Again, is not global warming, is climate change. Some areas will get very hot and others very cold and it not necessary mean that will go the ones close the equator, it will depend on the air currents (artic vortex for example) and the sea currents and their disruption. Some theories speaks that europe will be frozen for example
Click to expand...

Page 3: http://www.droughtmanagement.info/literature/WMO_climate_change_desertification_2007.pdf
(its from 2007 i know but still.)
1-2 degrees increase in temperature will cause a decrease in agriculture productivity which will lead to aridification --> Desertificaiton.
Global warming is a part of climate change, and other elements of climate change like extremely volatile weather will also cause aridification.
And the big danger with Climate Change, apart from increased average temperature(global warming), is all the side effects...
 
Fosu-Mens said:
Page 3: http://www.droughtmanagement.info/literature/WMO_climate_change_desertification_2007.pdf
(its from 2007 i know but still.)
1-2 degrees increase in temperature will cause a decrease in agriculture productivity which will lead to aridification --> Desertificaiton.
Global warming is a part of climate change, and other elements of climate change like extremely volatile weather will also cause aridification.
And the big danger with Climate Change, apart from increased average temperature(global warming), is all the side effects...
Click to expand...

And I am not disputing that at all. But there are other studies that suggest the disruption of AMOC could lead eventually and in long term to a ice age

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-currents-triggered-ice-age-climate-change

In the end is Climate change, it will be some consequences that will warm and some consequences that will cool down, others talk about the magnetic pole shifting because of the changes in the artic and simply there are too many variables of how those will resonate among them with multiplying effects and cancelling effects. We simply don't know, how when and which magnitude. We only know that the weather will drastically change

We simply don't know

What I am saying, is that maybe will not be europe who will need to receive climate refugees but the other way around. And not because of that reason we should help everyone as much as we can when disasters occurs, but just for human morality
 
4bars said:
And I am not disputing that at all. But there are other studies that suggest the disruption of AMOC could lead eventually and in long term to a ice age

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-currents-triggered-ice-age-climate-change

In the end is Climate change, it will be some consequences that will warm and some consequences that will cool down, others talk about the magnetic pole shifting because of the changes in the artic and simply there are too many variables of how those will resonate among them with multiplying effects and cancelling effects. We simply don't know, how when and which magnitude. We only know that the weather will drastically change

We simply don't know

What I am saying, is that maybe will not be europe who will need to receive climate refugees but the other way around. And not because of that reason we should help everyone as much as we can when disasters occurs, but just for human morality
Click to expand...

Gulf stream shutting down might take some time, but IIRC the flux was at its weakest point 1 or 2 in recorded (and some retraceable) history. Its a 7-9years from the Gulf of Mexico until i reaches Europe. Given that the Northern parts of Europe will get an average temperature increase well over the global increase, the Gulf stream shutting down might cancell the increase out. The problem with the Gulf stream shutting down is the lack of movement in the ocean and larger parts of the northern Atlantic becoming "dead zones".

If you want to become depressed read up on oceanic dead zones.

Parts of Europe might become climate refugees within Europe, but given the technological developement among most European countries, the idea that they are better equipped to handle more volatile weather compared to less developed areas of the world is not without merit.
 
Red Dreams said:
Have you seen extreme temps where you are?
Click to expand...

25 years ago it was -44 back where I grew up one morning in the winter. They got close to that again last winter but it's not been as common out that way recently. I think the absence of those temps in our parts is more of an extreme than a number on a thermometer.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
Gulf stream shutting down might take some time, but IIRC the flux was at its weakest point 1 or 2 in recorded (and some retraceable) history. Its a 7-9years from the Gulf of Mexico until i reaches Europe. Given that the Northern parts of Europe will get an average temperature increase well over the global increase, the Gulf stream shutting down might cancell the increase out. The problem with the Gulf stream shutting down is the lack of movement in the ocean and larger parts of the northern Atlantic becoming "dead zones".

If you want to become depressed read up on oceanic dead zones.

Parts of Europe might become climate refugees within Europe, but given the technological development among most European countries, the idea that they are better equipped to handle more volatile weather compared to less developed areas of the world is not without merit.
Click to expand...

I am sorry to insist. But again, nobody knows the consequences in specific areas. And you Europe might be very well prepared in London, Oslo, Stockholm, Barcelona, Lisbon, Liverpool, Amsterdam (and basically the whole Netherlands), Copenhagen and many others. Pity that they will be mostly underwater in terms of functioning well. Crippling the whole european system.

We rely in technology, we would not survive if we would need to depend on our skills on living from the earth, while other less develop countries might be better prepared for hardships as a society. 1st week without netflix will be rioting in europe while other societies knows what is suffering

Again, too many variables to see the effects on climate change specifically, could mean war inside europe for resources selfdistructing ourselves. We don't know reactions. Nothing. So we don't know who the refugees will be. And ssuming that would be the opposite suggesting to close the doors to the ones that needs is selfish and could be spitting upwards if then would be "us"
 
4bars said:
I am sorry to insist. But again, nobody knows the consequences in specific areas. And you Europe might be very well prepared in London, Oslo, Stockholm, Barcelona, Lisbon, Liverpool, Amsterdam (and basically the whole Netherlands), Copenhagen and many others. Pity that they will be mostly underwater in terms of functioning well. Crippling the whole european system.

We rely in technology, we would not survive if we would need to depend on our skills on living from the earth, while other less develop countries might be better prepared for hardships as a society. 1st week without netflix will be rioting in europe while other societies knows what is suffering

Again, too many variables to see the effects on climate change specifically, could mean war inside europe for resources selfdistructing ourselves. We don't know reactions. Nothing. So we don't know who the refugees will be. And ssuming that would be the opposite suggesting to close the doors to the ones that needs is selfish and could be spitting upwards if then would be "us"
Click to expand...

I think we operate with completely different timeframes.

With the worst estimates we are due a sealevelrise of 2.5 meters in 2100. I think there will be other climate change induced problems that will cause people to move long before this.
 
Fosu-Mens said:
I think we operate with completely different timeframes.

With the worst estimates we are due a sealevelrise of 2.5 meters in 2100. I think there will be other climate change induced problems that will cause people to move long before this.
Click to expand...

Might be that
 
Blackwidow said:
Everyone should started pronto - and what I think is important is that pollution (not just air pollution) should really get an economical factor.

(...)

If you do not need that SUV as you are not somebody that has to go offroad - you have too feel that in your pocket if your own sense does not tell you that anyways.
Click to expand...

This is not against you personally but I find it ironic. As a football fan you are actively supporting a group of 20+ men flying on a weekly basis to away stadiums, each one living excessively in 15 bedroom mansions and owning probably 5 sports cars and a yacht on average.

I would be curious for how much of the CO2 emissions the 20 Premier League clubs are responsible for. We are talking about roughly 500 players + staff traveling weekly by plane with thousands of travelling fans following them, millions of merchandising products being produced and shipped around the world, stadium infrastructure, live broadcast etc. etc.

The waste of ressources is enormous. And what for? So we can watch 22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes.

So seeing that we are in a climate crisis apparently and that football ultimately is pointless entertainment that no one really needs to live, how about banning football alltogether? Or at the very least make it an economical factor. Away ticket prices 150 % tax. Pay TV subscriptions 80 % tax. Merch products 50 % tax. Agree or disagree?

Unfortunately no one wants to start with himself. The non car driver points to the car driver. The car driver points to the SUV driver. The SUV driver who doesn't fly a lot points to the frequent flier. Etc.
 
Cait Sith said:
This is not against you personally but I find it ironic. As a football fan you are actively supporting a group of 20+ men flying on a weekly basis to away stadiums, each one living excessively in 15 bedroom mansions and owning probably 5 sports cars and a yacht on average.

I would be curious for how much of the CO2 emissions the 20 Premier League clubs are responsible for. We are talking about roughly 500 players + staff traveling weekly by plane with thousands of travelling fans following them, millions of merchandising products being produced and shipped around the world, stadium infrastructure, live broadcast etc. etc.

The waste of ressources is enormous. And what for? So we can watch 22 men chase a ball for 90 minutes.

So seeing that we are in a climate crisis apparently and that football ultimately is pointless entertainment that no one really needs to live, how about banning football alltogether? Or at the very least make it an economical factor. Away ticket prices 150 % tax. Pay TV subscriptions 80 % tax. Merch products 50 % tax. Agree or disagree?

Unfortunately no one wants to start with himself. The non car driver points to the car driver. The car driver points to the SUV driver. The SUV driver who doesn't fly a lot points to the frequent flier. Etc.
Click to expand...
I've been thinking that football is a giant waste to be honest. It wouldn't be as much of an issue if governments just made it hideously expensive to fly on conventional fuels, such that airlines had a good motivation to sort their shit out.
But honestly, with the way things are going we should find ways to entertain ourselves that doesn't involve huge carbon footprints.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.