AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.
Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!Hot on HuffPost:
See More Stories
Obama Announces Birth Control Compromise
Hoesktra Pulls Controversial Super Bowl Ad
While We Debate Climate Change, the Rest of the Planet Prepares for Mass Migration
We let ourselves be held back by those who refuse to admit sea temperatures are rising due to human activity. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is busily planning how to handle the fallout when larger portions of the globe become uninhabitable. Millions of people have already been forced from their homes due to climate change. Millions more will soon be forced out by floods, cyclones, tornadoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, droughts, increased storm cycles and other environmental catastrophes.
The following statement by the European Union's European Commission for the Environment was issued in 2008. It describes the massive planning already under way to prepare for huge surges of people made homeless by nature.
"Environmental refugees already number some 25 million, and it is estimated that by 2020, some 60 million people will move from desertified areas in Sub-Saharan Africa towards Northern Africa and Europe. But this south-north migration is nothing, compared to internal migrations within Africa itself. Most internal refugees settle in bloated megacities, a trend that -- given the scarce water resources -- is regarded as a potential disaster. Trapped in a deteriorating environment without access to freshwater and plagued by rising food prices, refugees and locals alike may be prone to poverty, disease, and unrest."The Europe Parliament is beginning to weigh the following questions:
1) How many environmental refugees should be allowed to settle on that continent?
2) Should European countries contribute greater sums to non-developed nations so they can try to absorb their own displaced residents?
There's no international consensus on the definition of an "environmental refugee," much less on how to deal with them. Natural disasters have been displacing people for centuries. Remember biblical references to the cedars of Lebanon? Those trees were so popular in ancient times, for building everything from palaces to furniture, that mankind essentially deforested Lebanon and desertification followed. Back then, global human population was but a smidgen of its current size. There were plenty of habitable regions available to refugees fleeing famines, droughts, massive storms and so on. That is no longer the case.
Today's environmental catastrophes are markedly more destructive and create more refugees because the volume of the displaced has magnified by geometric proportions due to population increases.
Here's but one recent example. A series of record cyclones during this decade has wiped out human habitat for millions of people along Bangladesh's Bay of Bengal coast and its inland mangrove forests and deltas -- 6 million, to be precise.
The Bangladesh city of Dhaka was home to a mere 200,000 people 30 years ago, according to the Guardian website. As a result of the flooding, it is now the fastest-growing city in the world and has 15 million residents. Most of the population increase has been driven by villagers deserting coastal homelands after cyclones and tidal flooding. Climatologists predict one-third of Bangladesh could be under water by the year 2050. (Guardian.com has a series of riveting videos profiling the victims of Cyclone Aila whose villages are permanently underwater.)
But Americans should not hold out hope nor fool themselves into thinking that environmental refugees will be limited to flooded mangrove forests in Asia or drought-stricken populations in Africa.
Some astute planners believe sea level increases during this century could make much of New York City uninhabitable. As science writer Bruce Stutz notes:
What is strikingly similar in all the literature on environmental refugees is the lack of reference to the basic cause of the problem: human overpopulation. Most of the concern is raised by progressive human rights or church assistance organizations, who see the "right" to emigrate (to higher, safer habitats) as a human or natural right. They demand money and assistance from developed nations, some of which may well -- and should -- be forthcoming. But the problem calls for another consideration too politically incorrect to utter: human population growth must be slowed. And until that aspect of the problem is dealt with, every other attempt to deal with what could soon become unprecedented levels of homelessness could be in vain.With only a foot and a half of sea level rise -- a realistic prediction for 2050 -- a storm as severe as Katrina could require New York City to evacuate as many as 3 million people. A three-foot rise in sea level -- which could well occur by the 2080s -- could turn major storms into minor apocalypses, inundating low-lying shore communities in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and Long Island; shutting down the city's metropolitan transportation system; flooding the highways that surround the city; and rendering the tunnels that lead into the city impassable.
Our New Approach to Comments
Add a Comment
Remember the push for zero population growth here in the US? Consider the cost to educate our children. Those with 3, 4, 5, even 6 children utilize greater resources, including education dollars, but pay no more in taxes. The planet is becoming overpopulated. That's a fact. What are we to do when the greatest asset on this earth, clean water, becomes a commodity? The oceans are becoming polluted with waste and over fished to support the masses. Global warming or not, we are doing this to ourselves and it's beyond time to be part of the solution and do something about it. Those who recycle, conserve, compost, etc. may respond and disagree, if you are not doing your share to help, consider yourself just part of the problem.
July 12 2010 at 1:56 PM Report abuse Permalink +1 rate up rate down ReplyHave you ever noticed that FOX NEWS never talks about global warming during a heat wave. They only talk about it in the dead of winter and then disparage the idea. FOX NEWS should stop giving their viewers misinformation on this and most other issues that don't fit their republican agenda.
July 11 2010 at 5:51 PM Report abuse Permalink -3 rate up rate down ReplyThe bigwhigs in the global warming movemnent demand the little people drastically cut back their lifestyles, while they, themselves, DONT. When they practice what they preach, and only when they practice what they preach, will I believe in man-made global warming.
July 11 2010 at 9:29 AM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down ReplyAn overpopulated earth is the cause of climate change. The more people, the more
cars, planes, pollution. China was the only country to recognize that overpopulation wreaks havoc on the environment, not to mention economic problems,
food and water shortages, political unrest, etc., etc. Every adult human should
think about limiting their family. For three generations my family has had only
one child.
China is by far the worst offender of global pollution with zero laws or regulations...so very bad example.
July 11 2010 at 12:46 PM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down Replycorrect..only some races of people the average reproductive rate is 8.1 children per family...this is highly unlikely to change..
July 11 2010 at 7:12 PM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down ReplyNo, the rest of the planet DOESNT believe man-made global warming is real. Stop reporting LIES.
July 10 2010 at 9:45 PM Report abuse Permalink +5 rate up rate down ReplyWow. We're the only ones not on board with this. How could anyone be unaware of that? Have you seen the massive investment in green technology by governments all over the world? And the total support of the people? We're the rogue nation here.
July 11 2010 at 9:18 PM Report abuse Permalink +2 rate up rate down ReplyIt is simply unbelievable that the author believes any of this nonsense. In fact, I'm convinced that she either secretly doesn't, or has done little or no research in the matter herself. Please, the rest of you, do some research and educate yourselves before falling prey to this kind of babble. Recommended reading: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, Red Hot Lies (Horner), and The Skeptical Environmentalist (Lomborg). There are so many others, also. The facts are now in and they present the lie on its face: The earth's climate is not in a general state of warming. You say that the arctic ice cap is melting? Did you know that the Antarctic ice sheet is irrefutably becoming thicker and larger? Take a note of all the global temperatures cited by Anthropogenic climate change proponents, virtually all of them begin by stating that the temperatures since 1990 have shown a steady state of warming. The real reason they do this? Because right about that time the USSR crashed and those regional facilities stopped reporting their temperatures. Gee, I wonder what kind of effect THAT would have on global average temperatures? There are far too many examples to cite here. Global Warming is simply a lie with no basis in fact that has been spread by those with an agenda and Americans have thankfully seen through the smoke and mirrors. As for these so-called 'migrations', they virtually all due to social, political, and economic reasons wholly unrelated to the any regional or global climate change. And even if they were, it would really be beside the point because such climate change could very well be due to natural climactic changes and not anthropogenic ones, and we wouldn't be able to do any more that than the average mammoth caught in the waning years of the last ice age.
July 10 2010 at 8:38 PM Report abuse Permalink +13 rate up rate down ReplySorry, but have you been to Africa recently and been involved with these migrations? Evaluated the rapid desertification? Worked on food security? Contacted Dengue fever?
Why not try actual scientific literature instead of that with an agenda?
People that have no means to care for children , should not be having them in the first place , and the more of these people sent to Europe or the USA , the less means we have for raising our children. Why should we pay for there problems at a cost of becoming a third world country ourselves?
July 10 2010 at 6:41 PM Report abuse Permalink +15 rate up rate down ReplyThe debate ended for me when top scientists from around the world that were manipulating there numbers got caught when there Emails were hacked into. In America whenver those that profit from this have to answer anything but soft questions...the microphone just happens to cut out.
July 10 2010 at 6:34 PM Report abuse Permalink +17 rate up rate down ReplyWhat a bunch of hooey! As far as I'm concerned the debate over global warming being the cause of everything or everything human being the cause of global warming is over.
This could be a natural form of what I call extinction or like ettu said, a natural course of events for our planet. What happened to common sense?
If you have over population that the resources can't support and you ruin all your land, use or abuse water resources you create what is going on. Overpopulation is the biggest problem in global warming!
July 10 2010 at 6:00 PM Report abuse Permalink +11 rate up rate down ReplyAbsolutely right on the money! Only when governments and religions start the process of controlling the population by not ENCOURAGING it, we will have started the process of a common sense approach to not only global warming, but the possibility of a mass kill off via disease caused by the overpopulation of the earth, an event that will make the Spanish flu of the late 1910s look like a walk in the park. Even though the last flu (see, I've already forgotten which strain it was [avian?]) did not reach the threat levels that health officals feared, it is only a matter of time given the shrinking world and loss of isolation, the unchecked and out of balance overpopulation of the planet by the human race that nature starts the corrective action. While first tier nations move closer to zero population growth, third world countries with a higher percentage of undereducated civilians who will continue to have numerous children and the industrialized nations will again be asked to ease their suffering by giving whatever we can. Its a shame that common sense is not a currency.
July 10 2010 at 9:40 PM Report abuse Permalink +5 rate up rate down Reply
Follow Politics Daily
Are U.S. Immigration Laws Biased Against Unmarried Dads?
#ihadanabortion: Technology and the Abortion Wars
Fat People Kissing on TV, Andy Warhol and the Perils of Our Internet Age
My Opinion: NPR Shouldn't Have Hired Juan Williams in the First Place
Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill: The Bizarre and the Unsurprising
POPULAR
- Nancy Pelosi Confirms House May Skip Up or Down Vote on Senate Health Bill
- The Five Most Racist Obama Cartoons?
- Huck Finn, Censorship and the N-Word Controversy
- Soraya M., Stoned to Death for Being an "Inconvenient Wife''
- Kathryn Rogers: 6 Things to Know About Rush Limbaugh's Bride-To-Be
- World's Best City for Men? New York City No. 1 in Survey
- California Same-Sex Marriage Trial: An Uneven Matchup
Follow Woman Up
News From Our Partners
- The case for a global currency
- Female soldiers fight the brass ceiling
- Catholic tribalism and the contraceptive flap
- The two Americas clash at CPAC
- A birth-control compromise could divide the right
- More Stories »
- Romney Edges Ron Paul in Maine Caucus
- Romney Beats Santorum in Conservative Straw Poll
- Obama's Budget Sets Up Fight With GOP
- Bishops: Birth Control Change Not Good Enough
- Ron Paul: I've Got 'Good Chance' in Maine
- More Stories »
- Former Bachmann spokeswoman joins Santorum team
- Sen. McCain to Negotiate Release of U.S. Aid Workers in Egypt
- Paul: Skipped CPAC to Try and Win in Maine
- The Phantom Menace: A Deal On the Payroll Tax Break
- McDonnell Sees "Great Path" for Romney
- More Stories »
- 10 things you need to know today: February 11, 2012
- Will money trouble sink Newt Gingrich's campaign?
- Good day, bad day: February 10, 2012
- Obama's birth control compromise: 'Still unacceptable'?
- Should glitter bombers get jail time?
- More Stories »
Top News
More News
More on Aol
Local News
More Blog/Sites
Sites and Services
HuffPost Politics
55 Comments