• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate disasters have forced more than 20 million people a year to flee homes in decade, study find

Bergslagstroll

Bergslagstroll

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
6,968
Reaction score
1,563
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Millions of people are forced to leave their homes because of climate related catastrophes.

Catastrophes such as floods, cyclones and fires caused by the climate crisis have driven millions of people from their homes every year for a decade, research by Oxfam has found.

Such disasters have forced more than 20 million people a year to flee – equivalent to one every two seconds – according to a new report by the charity.

Climate was the biggest cause of people being forced from home, bigger even than war, it says.

The study, which looked at how people were made refugees inside their home countries by climate disasters between 2008 and last year, reveals the reported number of weather emergencies over the past decade increased five-fold.
Click to expand...
Climate disasters have forced more than 20 million people a year to flee homes in decade, study finds | The Independent

Their you risk to see a dramatic increase in the number of refugees if we don't act on climate change.

Climate change could displace up to 300 million people by 2050 - Business Insider
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Millions of people are forced to leave their homes because of climate related catastrophes.

Climate disasters have forced more than 20 million people a year to flee homes in decade, study finds | The Independent

Their you risk to see a dramatic increase in the number of refugees if we don't act on climate change.

Climate change could displace up to 300 million people by 2050 - Business Insider
Click to expand...


If we “solve” the climate crisis then over 5 billion people will die.
 
Replacing all our coal fired power plants with nuclear plants is a good start. 30% of our CO2 emissions are from coal.

But America doesn't even emit half the greenhouse gasses China does. Chinese concrete production alone, if it were a country, would be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses on the planet.

Talk to the Chinese.
 
swing_voter said:
Replacing all our coal fired power plants with nuclear plants is a good start. 30% of our CO2 emissions are from coal.

But America doesn't even emit half the greenhouse gasses China does. Chinese concrete production alone, if it were a country, would be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses on the planet.

Talk to the Chinese.
Click to expand...

So, do nothing?
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Millions of people are forced to leave their homes because of climate related catastrophes.

Climate disasters have forced more than 20 million people a year to flee homes in decade, study finds | The Independent

Their you risk to see a dramatic increase in the number of refugees if we don't act on climate change.

Climate change could displace up to 300 million people by 2050 - Business Insider
Click to expand...

“Caused” is a big word with a pretty high bar to achieve.
 
Moon said:
“Caused” is a big word with a pretty high bar to achieve.
Click to expand...

And it’s impossible to say how the researches distinguished between run of the mill “catastrophes” and those supposedly driven by climate change because the article’s imbedded link to the study leads to a 404 page.
 
Napoleon said:
And it’s impossible to say how the researches distinguished between run of the mill “catastrophes” and those supposedly driven by climate change because the article’s imbedded link to the study leads to a 404 page.
Click to expand...

Here is a direct link to the report.

Forced from home: climate-fuelled displacement | Oxfam International

That we are now running out of time.

Tipping Points That Could Unleash a Planetary Emergency Are Now Active, Scientists Warn

Last decade ‘almost certain’ to have been hottest on record, climate experts warn | The Independent

'Unprecedented' Rains in East Africa Offer a Glimpse of the Climate Emergency
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Here is a direct link to the report.
Click to expand...

The IPCC acknowledges that the data doesn’t exist to ascribe natural disasters to climate change.

Bergslagstroll said:
That we are now running out of time.
Click to expand...

Running out of time for what? Doing profoundly stupid things like building cities below sea level along the coast or towns in the middle of a floodplain? Maybe, but the world is not going to end. We will adapt just as we have always done to every climate change over the last 200,000 years.
 
Napoleon said:
The IPCC acknowledges that the data doesn’t exist to ascribe natural disasters to climate change.



Running out of time for what? Doing profoundly stupid things like building cities below sea level along the coast or towns in the middle of a floodplain? Maybe, but the world is not going to end. We will adapt just as we have always done to every climate change over the last 200,000 years.
Click to expand...

One flaw with your argument. Didn't have 7 billion people on the planet, or massive additions of greenhouse gases being added at anytime in the past 200k years.
 
mrjurrs said:
One flaw with your argument. Didn't have 7 billion people on the planet, or massive additions of greenhouse gases being added at anytime in the past 200k years.
Click to expand...

We survived the last ice age. Pretty sure we can survive an average temperature increase of two degrees.
 
Napoleon said:
We survived the last ice age. Pretty sure we can survive an average temperature increase of two degrees.
Click to expand...

Most of us will.
 
mrjurrs said:
You're gonna need a source for that claim.
Click to expand...

The population of the world at the beginning of the Industrial Age was less then 2 billion people.

It is highly impossible to feed anywhere near the current population without petroleum and chemistry.

So there will be mass famine if drastic “climate change” action is actually taken.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
The population of the world at the beginning of the Industrial Age was less then 2 billion people.

It is highly impossible to feed anywhere near the current population without petroleum and chemistry.

So there will be mass famine if drastic “climate change” action is actually taken.
Click to expand...

So you think 5 billion people will starve to death? Still feels like an opinion to me. It also appears that you are discounting our ability to adjust and will be forced to continue using the same methods until they die. No way. The consumption of meat-based protein would fall dramatically.
 
mrjurrs said:
So you think 5 billion people will starve to death? Still feels like an opinion to me. It also appears that you are discounting our ability to adjust and will be forced to continue using the same methods until they die. No way. The consumption of meat-based protein would fall dramatically.
Click to expand...

Which means billions would starve to death.

You see famine doesn’t just come from literally wasting away like a concentration camp prisoner, if you cut the protein diet of most of the worlds population then people will be sicker and die far more frequently and younger then if they continue eating meat based proteins.

It is an opinion, but an educated one because we know the world didn’t have 8 billion people before fossil fuel based energy and industrialization occured. That WAS the adaptation. And the environmental movement is explicitly based on hatred of human civilization and reducing or stopping global population growth
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Which means billions would starve to death.

You see famine doesn’t just come from literally wasting away like a concentration camp prisoner, if you cut the protein diet of most of the worlds population then people will be sicker and die far more frequently and younger then if they continue eating meat based proteins.

It is an opinion, but an educated one because we know the world didn’t have 8 billion people before fossil fuel based energy and industrialization occured. That WAS the adaptation. And the environmental movement is explicitly based on hatred of human civilization and reducing or stopping global population growth
Click to expand...

There is more than enough protein on the planet to support 10 billion people. Unfortunately, it will require the consumption of insects and artificially created protein. You're gonna need a source for that description of the environmental movement (unless it is just your opinion).
 
Bergslagstroll said:
Millions of people are forced to leave their homes because of climate related catastrophes.

Climate disasters have forced more than 20 million people a year to flee homes in decade, study finds | The Independent

Their you risk to see a dramatic increase in the number of refugees if we don't act on climate change.

Climate change could displace up to 300 million people by 2050 - Business Insider
Click to expand...

Where did this 200 million people go and what regions did they leave? That many people relocating would leave formerly inhabited areas uninhabited, or nearly uninhabited. We would have noticed that.
 
Napoleon said:
We survived the last ice age. Pretty sure we can survive an average temperature increase of two degrees.
Click to expand...

Last ice age took centuries to develop and still required hunting species to extinction to make that survival happen. And survival isn't the issue. Are you familiar with the phrase, "It's not life but the quality of life that matters."? As in, we're not likely to kill ourselves off but we could make life very uncomfortable for some of us. Already global warming is becoming a pain in the butt in some places. People near where I live have been laid off from their aquaculture jobs because the slight increase in seawater acidity inhibits scallops from forming shells, and the changes in permafrost are having a bad effect on underground infrastructure in the Arctic.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Which means billions would starve to death.

You see famine doesn’t just come from literally wasting away like a concentration camp prisoner, if you cut the protein diet of most of the worlds population then people will be sicker and die far more frequently and younger then if they continue eating meat based proteins.

It is an opinion, but an educated one because we know the world didn’t have 8 billion people before fossil fuel based energy and industrialization occured. That WAS the adaptation. And the environmental movement is explicitly based on hatred of human civilization and reducing or stopping global population growth
Click to expand...

Why is environmentalism a partisan thing? Don't conservatives like to hunt and fish anymore? Or do they consider that choking smog and burning rivers and dead lakes are just a price of doing business?
 
Grand Mal said:
Why is environmentalism a partisan thing? Don't conservatives like to hunt and fish anymore? Or do they consider that choking smog and burning rivers and dead lakes are just a price of doing business?
Click to expand...

Because the environmentalists hate human civilization and believe an environment exactly as they dictate it is the objective at all costs
 
swing_voter said:
Replacing all our coal fired power plants with nuclear plants is a good start. 30% of our CO2 emissions are from coal.

But America doesn't even emit half the greenhouse gasses China does. Chinese concrete production alone, if it were a country, would be the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses on the planet.

Talk to the Chinese.
Click to expand...

No thanks. Nuclear power plants in earthquake prone areas are a disaster waiting to happen. We'll keep our coal power plants because we have lots of nearby coal. In fact, we have so much coal at our disposal that we are selling it to China, along with a large supply of zinc and lead.

Besides, a warming planet is an incredibly good thing. We benefit tremendously technologically, socially, and culturally. Since 1850 look and what we have accomplished. It was the same during the Medieval Warming that sparked the Renascence, and the Roman Warming that created the most technologically advanced culture on the planet at that time, and the Minoan Warming.

In absolute every case these warming periods have been a boon for humanity. We would certainly be having difficulty feeding a planet of 7+ billion people if not for a warming planet. All you need do is look at the famines and plagues that occurred during the Little Ice-Age. Is that something you really want to return to?
 
mrjurrs said:
There is more than enough protein on the planet to support 10 billion people. Unfortunately, it will require the consumption of insects and artificially created protein. You're gonna need a source for that description of the environmental movement (unless it is just your opinion).
Click to expand...

Why would that be unfortunate?

You see in a free market if insect and artificial protein were more efficient they would be cheaper and thus preferred
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom