I would say both mass relocation and doing something about carbon emissions would be dramatic action. I’d much prefer the latter. I’m doubting even the former will be done.
It seems likely mass relocations will be reactive, and the areas where people try to relocate will fight hard not to accept desperate people. Look at Europe right now, where refugees are being deliberately drowned so countries don’t have to accept more people. And that’s before these problems become widespread.
The suffering directly caused by climate change will be bad - homelessness, starvation, lack of water, deadly heat and storms, etc. But we will add to that suffering when the whole world starts fighting over it.
I’ve been saying the same things, especially about refugees. If Europeans and Americans think they have a migration crisis now, wait until it is above survivable heat in the tropical countries in the summer.
I keep saying it hoping the talking point spreads, but it astounds me that the right-wing factions responsible for stirring up conflict and ignoring climate change leading to mass migrations of people are the ones being put back into power.
1.2 billion. With a B. And they hope drownings and, in America’s case, a wall, is going to do anything to stop it. They’re going to have to mount machine gun nests along every border and coastline.
I’ve definitely considered putting a “joke” (ha ha ha) lifeboat at one of the fire exits at my apartment complex right next to the ocean (less than 300 feet away)…
I just had this strange vision of being cattle hearing a dinner bell and - both being used to it and not knowing what its for - continuing in our task of chewing food while staring after that annoyance in the homestead’s direction.
Also not knowing of course that’s where our herd member Sam went from the day before.
Dramatic action was not taken.
What dramatic action is there even to take?
Relocate 40% of the world’s population further inland?
Hmm, actually sounds more realistic than a successful collective effort to reduce carbon emissions.
I would say both mass relocation and doing something about carbon emissions would be dramatic action. I’d much prefer the latter. I’m doubting even the former will be done.
It seems likely mass relocations will be reactive, and the areas where people try to relocate will fight hard not to accept desperate people. Look at Europe right now, where refugees are being deliberately drowned so countries don’t have to accept more people. And that’s before these problems become widespread.
The suffering directly caused by climate change will be bad - homelessness, starvation, lack of water, deadly heat and storms, etc. But we will add to that suffering when the whole world starts fighting over it.
I’ve been saying the same things, especially about refugees. If Europeans and Americans think they have a migration crisis now, wait until it is above survivable heat in the tropical countries in the summer.
I keep saying it hoping the talking point spreads, but it astounds me that the right-wing factions responsible for stirring up conflict and ignoring climate change leading to mass migrations of people are the ones being put back into power.
Show people this- https://www.zurich.com/en/media/magazine/2022/there-could-be-1-2-billion-climate-refugees-by-2050-here-s-what-you-need-to-know
1.2 billion. With a B. And they hope drownings and, in America’s case, a wall, is going to do anything to stop it. They’re going to have to mount machine gun nests along every border and coastline.
I’ve definitely considered putting a “joke” (ha ha ha) lifeboat at one of the fire exits at my apartment complex right next to the ocean (less than 300 feet away)…
I just had this strange vision of being cattle hearing a dinner bell and - both being used to it and not knowing what its for - continuing in our task of chewing food while staring after that annoyance in the homestead’s direction.
Also not knowing of course that’s where our herd member Sam went from the day before.