I consume a significant amount of news from many sources, including a lot on the refugee crisis. For the life of me I couldn't figure out why what has been going on has been going on as long as it has. Then I saw this article earlier this month. Predictions are that even IF the recently agreed upon emissions goals are met, parts the Middle East and Africa (MENA) could be inhospitable by 2050. By 2100, large swaths of the MENA would be inhospitable to humans. Predictions are that by 2050, there could be 80 days averaging 45C (112F) and that by 2100 more than 200 days per year could reach 50C (122F).
Rather than the complete on utter chaos that would erupt from the mass migration of environmental refugees (think massive number of deaths, wars, global economic collapse), world governments are taking an 'it takes a generation' approach. Mind you, everyone has their theories, ideas and possible reasons behind all of this (which could be being used in and of themselves as motivators and catalysts in this), but we will all be dead or on our way out before the environmental crisis peaks. The next generation will find ways to integrate, ways we don't understand or agree with for our own reasons and beliefs, but they will find a way because by that time there won't be any going back. In the end, despite the tragedies occurring, we may be witnessing the coordinated and possibly now unstoppable start of the best possible outcome, given current politics and beliefs. I'd be interested to hear others thoughts on this.
view the rest of the comments →
Sciency ago
I had not considered this, but it makes a great deal of sense. Hell, californians are fleeing north right now because of the heat and lack of water. Only one question comes to mind though: the west does not like the middle east and africa... why wouldn't they just invest in some big walls? Border security would almost certainly be cheaper and less destabilizing to the rest of the world.
UnknownCitizen ago
Nukes, is the short answer though the probability of things escalating that far is still low. As much as I hate it, I am considering a move myself, though not anytime soon. The fact that El Nino this year was non-existent in SoCal was pretty scary to me. We don't have water, the forests are dying, the air is getting worse again, it's not looking too great. I grew up in SoCal and I have seen the change happen right before my eyes. Though that brings to mind another conspiracy theory: Could the natural gas accident have been intentional to buffer LA from El Nino because the city wasn't prepared to handle that much rain and couldn't capture any of it anyway. The total economic cost of the last severe on in 1997 was 25 billion $.
But anyway, total security is an illusion. Security in general is more about look and pretense than it is about actual security. A man will move a mountain to feed his starving child. Isolationist strategies may work in the short term, but to stop the mass migration of hundreds of millions of people is mind boggling. We'd end up killing some of their people in the environmental migration, they'd kill some of ours, we'd kill more of there's, they'd kill more of ours. Given the proliferation of technology, weapons already in the area, both militia and government, it gets easier and easier to inflict HUGE damage with little cost. I'd venture Saudi Arabia would leverage it's new economic power to its advantage as well. Estimates are that after it's IPO, the state run oil company would be worth 2 trillion $. With control over vast energy resources, and rising economic influence, the geopolitical power of the MENA could provide big leverage to less inclined governments. The world could very well sink into a new dark age, which I think is what is trying to be avoided.
Sciency ago
Good points all around. Thanks for contributing some interesting conversation around here, it feels a little dead at times.
I had considered the methane leak as an intentional event, but today I actually had an interesting thought. With hordes of californians migrating, there could be some interesting shifts in neighboring states' political balances. I wonder if a more liberal voting base in the surrounding states would perhaps benefit a company/industry, by way of some more favorable canadates. I'm also pretty sure (please correct me if I'm wrong) electoral votes wouldn't change for california alongside their declining population. I haven't dug into this yet, so 'grain of salt' and all that, but it really wouldn't shock me.
One thing that really bugs me about this leak, is the obvious solution that no one seems to bring up. If you light that plume of methane on fire, the only byproducts would be CO2, water, and heat. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (86 times greater, per part, iirc). A 200 ft plume of flame would even serve as one hell of a tourist attraction. Might be able to recoup some of the losses, and get a few desalinization plants running to try and keep the local ecosystems on life-support until the atmosphere normalizes. Maybe I'm missing an obvious drawback to this idea, but this whole situation just seems fishy.
UnknownCitizen ago
I have actually read comments by conservatives worried that a California exodus would change their conservative states. It would take a lot to change the electoral make up, but, gerrymandering aside, the votes could move along with the people and result in little nationwide change. And yeah, I was wondering about the burn off myself and why it wasn't done. Coupled with the freak bypassing of SoCal by El Nino and the shady investigation going on in Sacramento, it looks super fishy. People don't really know how crucial Los Angeles is to the health of the nation. By numbers, it is the manufacturing hub of the country and has the first and second largest ports by far (by volume). In 2012 California pumped about 198 million barrels of oil. Los Angeles, of oil, gas and water production District 1 accounted for 26.5 million barrels of production. Total US production was around 3 billion barrels. While not a huge chunk of production, it would be a noticeable loss.The refineries have a capacity of about 1.1 million barrels per day of the nation's 18 million barrels per day. LA generates 120 billion $ of 546 billion $ per year in entertainment industry revenue (film, TV and music [including merchandise and touring]. One last fun fact: The 2015 GDP of the US was about 18 trillion dollars. The GMP of Los Angeles was 866 billion dollars. Oh, and that leaking natural gas field contains 5% of the nations natural gas. So yeah, crazy junk amiss, though I suppose there always is in a sense.
Sciency ago
So, I dont follow CA too closely, have there been a lot of businesses relocating along with the people? I would hate to see LA turn into a massive version of detroit. I wonder how lasting the effects of this leak will be. Anyway, I'm gonna catch some sleep, good chatting!