Slashdot Mirror
Arkansas Has a Growing Population of "Climate Change Refugees"
HughPickens.com writes: Located between Hawaii and Australia, the Marshall Islands are made up of 29 atolls and five islands with a population of about 70,000, all of whom live about six feet above sea level. Now Story Hinkley writes in the Christian Science Monitor that another 10,000 Marshallese have moved to Springdale, Arkansas because of climate change. Because this Pacific island nation is so small, the Marshallese population in Arkansas attribute their Springdale settlement to one man, John Moody, who moved to the US in 1979 after the first wave of flooding. Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas, eventually causing a steady flow of extended friends and family migrating to Springdale. "Probably in 10 to 20 years from now, we're all going to move," says Roselinta Keimbar adding that she likes Arkansas because it is far away from the ocean, meaning it is safe.
For more than three decades, Marshallese have moved in the thousands to the landlocked Ozark Mountains for better education, jobs and health care, thanks to an agreement that lets them live and work in the US.. This historical connection makes it an obvious destination for those facing a new threat: global warming. Marshallese Foreign Minister Tony de Brum says even a small rise in global temperatures would spell the demise of his country. While many world leaders in Paris want to curb emissions enough to cap Earth's warming at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), de Brum is pushing for a target that's 25 percent lower. "The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us," says de Brum. "We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual." Meanwhile residents jokingly call their new home "Springdale Atoll," and there's even a Marshallese consulate in Springdale, the only one on the mainland US. "Its not our fault that the tide is getting higher," says Carlon Zedkaia,. "Just somebody else in this world that wants to get rich."
For more than three decades, Marshallese have moved in the thousands to the landlocked Ozark Mountains for better education, jobs and health care, thanks to an agreement that lets them live and work in the US.. This historical connection makes it an obvious destination for those facing a new threat: global warming. Marshallese Foreign Minister Tony de Brum says even a small rise in global temperatures would spell the demise of his country. While many world leaders in Paris want to curb emissions enough to cap Earth's warming at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius), de Brum is pushing for a target that's 25 percent lower. "The thought of evacuation is repulsive to us," says de Brum. "We think that the more reasonable thing to do is to seek to end this madness, this climate madness, where people think that smaller, vulnerable countries are expendable and therefore they can continue to do business as usual." Meanwhile residents jokingly call their new home "Springdale Atoll," and there's even a Marshallese consulate in Springdale, the only one on the mainland US. "Its not our fault that the tide is getting higher," says Carlon Zedkaia,. "Just somebody else in this world that wants to get rich."
Now, I've traveled pretty extensively - and have enjoyed my time in Arkansas quite a bunch. But... And you knew there must be a but... I can't really imagine the hardship if you're moving to the Ozarks for a "better education." This might seem like a slam against the Ozarks and, indeed, it might be but the reality is that they're not stupid - it's that I just don't think of the Ozarks when I think of where to send people for a "better education."
Better than what? I was under the impression that we'd put schools and infrastructure in place post WWII. The climate part I get... But, of all the places to seek in the US for "better education" that seems a bit of a stretch. I'm thinking it was cheap living, ready jobs at Tyson, family, and a pre-existing culture base that was similar due to their historical roots. Hmm... I suspect "education" makes a better sound bite but damned if I'm gonna read the article - I'm no heretic.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Are they Muslims? If so this is the end to our America. And look they criticize our way of live. We will not change our ways just for a flipping atoll who have for no apparent reason access to the US. It is our right to drive where other people would walk. And it is our right to have this great market economy. Yes we can become rich. Every decent person can become rich. And we will not allow to destroy this by some island folks or the pope who is not a true Christian. Look he just visited a Mosque in Africa. And there is no such thing as human made global warming, because if there were we would have to give up our birth rights. We will never do that.
-- signed, Republican Simbot v0.5a
since we all know there is no such thing as AGW. I understand the Tuamotus are being abandoned as well.
It's AGW week. "Climate change refugees" for something that hasn't happened yet is more PC than saying they moved to the USA because it's the "land of opportunity", providing jobs and education, with "chain immigration" policies making it easy to import thousands relatives once the first legal immigrant arrives.
Except, the claim is they started fleeing in 1979. I was a senior in college then taking a physics of the weather class. We were in the middle of global cooling, and that was most of what the class talked about. There's no way there was a problem then. That was before Raygun decided to really crank-up the temperature of the Earth in order to hurt the poor and minorities.
The Searcy County seat town of Marshall, Arkansas in the Ozarks has been suffering from an exodus of youth during the past few decades. My parents are retired there and complain that there are not enough young people to take care of the aging population. I take this as a sign of divine Providence... warming could be an act of God intended to care for my retired parents.
Gently reply
Whether you believe in God or climate change, and I'm not certain why the two are typically mutually exclusive, it has to occur to you that change is inevitable. Tangible evidence exists that the World's weather is different now, and it doesn't take a wild leap of imagination to infer that eight billion humans probably have something to do with it.
The sacrifice required now to right the ship is minimal compared to what it will become in a decade... and past a certain tipping point, there will be no remedy. Buy some land where it's presently very cold.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Huh? It says right in the summary: "Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas". Is "working for Tyson" slang for "running from climate change" that I've never heard of?
Too bad I'm not a sculptor, I'd love to launch a climate change-related kickstarter which both sides could get behind. I'd offer to - if I could raise the expenses - make life-sized bronze statues of the world's most prominent climate-change deniers and install them on popular beaches around the world where permission could be gotten. Each statue would be on a pedestal on which is engraved one of their more prominent quotes denying climate change. The proportions of the statues would be such that at low tide the base of the pedestal is at sea height, while at high tide the top of the pedestal is at sea height, and the total height of the person matches up to the projected sea level rise over the next century.
Hence, if those denying climate change are right, a century forth they're left with a statue on their beach mocking all of the Chicken Littles. If those arguing that it's real are correct, they get to gloat as they watch the statue sink a bit further beneath the waves every year for the rest of their lives and a cautionary dive site for future generations.
I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
Of course not. Nobody is fleeing from climate. They're just fleeing from the flood and their islands going under.
Fleeing from a climate, how silly a concept.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Regardless of any sea rising problems, free reign to come live and work in the US is a boon to any 3rd world nation, and many will take advantage of it.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
That's funny. I'd put in $5 to your kickstarter.
> Raygun decided to really crank-up the temperature of the Earth
I'm starting to understand the "liberalism is a mental disorder" thing.
The per-capita GDP of the Marshall Islands is $2900, very low by world standards, and it has never been a lot better. Arkansas's per capita GDP, by comparison, is $31000. That alone is ample incentive for moving. That is, even a backwater, poor state like Arkansas is still a lot better that the Marshall Islands. While Westerners have some idyllic notions of island paradise, atolls have always been risky and marginal places to live; people moved there because they didn't have any other options, and these nations have always experienced large net emigration as soon as people actually had opportunities to emigrate. In addition, many of these atolls simply are not permanent, but they are temporary features that appear and disappear over thousands of years, quite naturally, regardless of human activity.
Also, to put this issue into perspective, all island nations of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia together make up less than 3 million people, who have always lived under impoverished conditions and always been at high risk from natural disasters. Even if global warming were to displace all of them, that would be comparable to the number displaced by a single major hydroelectric plant, like China's Three River Gorges dam.
At this point, the discussion is also academic because sea levels are going to continue to rise, no matter what policies we adopt, so we better find places to accommodate these people. Given that places like Europe have big demographic problems, Europeans should welcome these populations with open arms. Of course, America would also benefit from their presence and I'm glad they are settling here.
So they're welcome in my book.
So the constant and relatively new flooding the island is getting is caused by what?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
At least it would be cheap to do.
The total height of the statues would be about a foot, if you're scaling them to actual projected sea level rise from the long-term trend since the start of AGW.
If you take the "extreme" current predictions, they'd have to be about three feet tall.
Why should 1 Billion people in India give up on affordable energy and all the improvements it brings to their lives just so a few thousand people can live comfortably in the Marshall Islands?
I welcome Pacific Islanders. There is about 3 million people in Micronesia, Polynesia, and Melanesia, and maybe half of them are living on these kinds of marginal atolls. The US has one million legal immigrants per year; this is a drop in the bucket. We should welcome these people with open arms, for their benefit and for ours.
Plus, chain immigration is how most ancestors of US residents got there in the first place.
They are retroactive AGW refugees. They actually moved for different reasons, but it is one that doesn't politicize as well as AGW and bring in those precious, precious ad dollars.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Damn, wish my house was that high up...
Note that New Orleans is below Sea Level.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
They're 6 feet above sea level and apparently the sea has risen by 2 meters suddenly and driven them off the island.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Of course not. Nobody is fleeing from climate. They're just fleeing from the flood and their islands going under.
Fleeing from a climate, how silly a concept.
At the present rate, their island will go under in about 500 years, so they can probably take their time fleeing. But that is okay because they have been "fleeing AGW" for decades before anyone even knew that there was AGW going on. In fact, they started fleeing back when the coming ice age was the current scary disaster.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
They live in a place that has NEVER flooded until the seventies.
Yea, right. They just never had a place they could leave to until the 70s.
My guess would rather be that they neither heard about the ice age scare nor the global warming craze, but they simply saw that water is coming, that floods are getting more numerous and that it's safer to pack up and GTFO.
Some people don't need no statistics to know when to flee some place. Wet feet are more convincing than any amount of statistics.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
RCP8,5 is 0,53-0,98m by 2100... which is only about 84 years from now. With the rise at 2100 predicted at around 0,9-1,8cm/yr over the 2100-2116 period (minus the current 0,32-0,36mm/yr) the total would be something like 0,62m-1,21m (2' to 4') - basically, a typical person sitting, kneeling, or similar. The amount of rise however does vary to some degree based on location, and some isolated areas (like Baffin Bay) are even expected to get a drop (about 5% of the worlds' oceans). The northeastern US and northeastern Canada are projected to get a particularly large rise, so a statue there could be in a more upright position or built to a larger scale - the waters off of New York are projected to rise a median value of 0,3 meters in just the 2081-2100 period alone. New York's 2100 RCP8,5 range is about 0,5 to 1,2m - adjusting to 2116 would put it at 0,6-1,5m (on top of the pedestal of course, which would be about 1,3 meters tall).
RCP8,5 is of course the "business as usual" line... which has been the best bet thusfar. The "if we make huge efforts" RCP2,6 prediction is about half of the RCP8,5 predictions. There could be some other object on each statue to denote the RCP2,6 line.
I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
So... if you were to plant one on the Oregon Coast, you'd end up with a 6' tall base and a 1' tall statue atop that.
This of course does not count what it would take to anchor the whole shebang to bedrock so that tidal erosion doesn't knock it over and bury it.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
See this. Oregon's prediction is about average, so the RCP8,5 would be about 2-4 feet tall (a normal-sized person sitting, kneeling, or somesuch), with some other indicator for the RCP2,6 at about half that. And yes, the pedestal in that location would be larger than in a location like NYC.
I hate to bring up our imminent arrest during your crazy time, but we gotta move.
Huh? It says right in the summary: "Moody's family eventually moved to Springdale to live with him and work for Tyson and other poultry companies based in Arkansas". Is "working for Tyson" slang for "running from climate change" that I've never heard of?
I fear I've read the article, so I'd better turn in my slashdot card. But here goes. And nothing in particular about your post - it was just a handy place for me to chime in.
As they note the first "relocator" was a Mr Moody - hey, wasn't on a lot of Lucille Ball TV shows? But I digress.
So why would a lot of Marshall Islanders want to leave their tropical paradise? Turns out there were a lot of problems where they lived - And here's why in 1979 it all started.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... We done went and made their home uninhabitable. We relocated them to other islands, but there wasn't enough resources for them to sustain life. Then we tried relocating them back to Bikini Island, but it turned out that while there were resources there, the food they grew was radioactive.
So now we can get an understanding of why and when. And in 1979, it wasn't AGW that spurred the initial migration, it was radioactivity - we'd pretty much rendered their original home uninhabitable.
Today? On Islands that are around 10 feet or less in altitude above sea level, it doesn't take a 10 foot rise to make them uninhabitable, just a combination of tides and storms happening at the right time. You might have some pretty palm trees most of the time, but the people who lived there have all drowned.
So despite Slashdotters getting their entire info from a summary and filling in the details with their preconceptions and opinions, the story is: In the 1940's the US went on an explodey rampage, and really bitched up the Marshall Islander's home.
They relocated them. Didn't work out. Unsustainable
They brought them back. Didn't work out. Radioactive food. We even tried capping the nasty stuff http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
So in the late 70's the relocation started. Then it was getting out of a mess we created. Now it very well can be a combination of a marginal location that is become vulnerable.
I'm going to get a rash of tl;dr's no doubt. But there's the story.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
he first humans moved to Florida about 12,000 years ago
And they're still clogging up I-95 driving 40 miles an hour with their left-turn blinker on.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
My guess would rather be that they neither heard about the ice age scare nor the global warming craze, but they simply saw that water is coming, that floods are getting more numerous and that it's safer to pack up and GTFO.
Some people don't need no statistics to know when to flee some place. Wet feet are more convincing than any amount of statistics.
At 6 feet above seal level, how can you even tell floods are more numerous? High tide is over 5 feet. At least once a month, you are going to get flood even if there is no significant weather.
They started fleeing the encroaching waters back in the 1970s when the sea level was still dropping.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
I'm sure the Marshall Islands are no different. More people, which means more people (especially poor people) will be trying to live near the water or in areas that are cheap (due to flooding maybe?). We saw the same nonsense in New Orleans with people living 10-15 feet below the water level behind substandard dikes.
The water has been doing what the water does for thousands of years, but now there are more people in the way and somehow that makes it Global Warming. What a crock of shit. They aren't coming here because the water level moved up 1/16 of an inch. Those people want the better standard of living, jobs, and social programs....period end of story.
It has already happened. Parts of their islands flooded, and the sea level is rising and floods becoming more common, along with extreme weather events. FTA elaborates that change is now seen as inevitable, and eventually enough people will be forced to move that there won't be a viable economy or society left for the rest and they will all have to move.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Although unlikely, It would be interesting if they all came to Arkansas. The states population is about 3 million, that "drop in the bucket" would completely change the nature of it... probably for the better.
Take a look at the actual sea level data from Majuro records. The data fits a nice non-inclining 3rd order sinusoidal function with peaks and dips in the average sea level. And no sign of acceleration (unless you do a linear regression with a terrible R^2 fit of 0.11).The sea level isn't really rising much, if any. If the level of the atoll is falling, it's either subsidence or natural decline that comes from living on a pile of coral in the middle of the ocean.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
The actual sea level data shows little if any increases. It's a nice sinusoidal function that tracks a 24 year period. The ONLY way you can get that data to show sea level rise issues is with a linear regression and a terrible R^2 of 0.11 (meaning - you're trying to fit essentially random data with a straight line). The sea level isn't changing.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
We A-bombed THE FUCK outta their islands, and kicked them off others.[*]
They better damn well love America!
[*] still better than they probably could've expected at the hands of the Japanese...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Its the jumping, Every time someone on the atoll jumps, its sinks by a tiny amount. Unfortunately pogo sticks are the national pastime.
There's only one thing to do then. Buy a little farm, get a sheep and a cow, and breed horses.
Smog was a big problem in the 70s. Smog blocks out sunlight and causes cooling. Laws were passed and it was dealt with in the most places. Now we are talking about greenhouse gases which are a different thing. Please pay attention.
They didn't "begin fleeing" en masse in 1979. One guy moved there. That said, global warming wasn't unheard of in '79. It was predicted in the 19th century, and scientists were well aware of it in the seventies, even if the media wasn't.
Also, "Raygun decided to really crank-up the temperature of the Earth in order to hurt the poor and minorities."? That's a childish view. Environmental regulations were gutted to make donors wealthier. The poor are not part of the equation.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
Please, O Right Wing Troll, your views are every bit as ideological and simplistic as his.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
So are we supposed to ignore that the Marshall Islands get 160+ inches of rain a year with most falling from May to November??? Logic would tell you that it getting heavy rains and being near sea level would lend itself to flooding. Add to that tides are a result of the gravitational pull of the moon and the sun, which can only happen a maximum of twice a month, so the "more frequent" claim is utter rubbish. Is climate change changing gravity now too??? Australia has monitors all over down there and the data is available quite easily. Those show some pretty common numbers when charted with no great rise like has been claimed.
Oh trust me. I've paid really close attention.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
Here's the tide gauge for Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshal Islands. It looks like it was put in in 1946 or 1947. Since then there's been over 6 inches of SLR in the Marshalls. 6 inches vertical rise means many feet of horizontal spread. When your maximum elevation is about 6 feet all it takes is a large king tide or major storm surge to wash over the islands.
In looking at the graph it has dropped quite a bit in the past year. I believe that is because of the El Nino which pushes more water toward the Eastern Pacific. If you look back in the graph there were big drops in the 1997/1998 and 1982/1983 which also were strong El Nino years.
No one was wrong about cooling. There were a few speculative papers about the possibilities but there were 7 times as many about warming (from 1965 to 1979).
That tide gauge wasn't even installed until 1993. I found one for Kwajalein Atoll that's been there since 1947. It does show sea level rise of around 6 inches. There are several big dips in the sea level that appear to correspond to El Nino years when the winds push water toward the Eastern Pacific.
That tide gauge wasn't installed until 1993. I found one for Kwajalein Atoll that's been there since 1947. It does show sea level rise of around 6 inches. There are several big dips in the sea level that appear to correspond to El Nino years when the winds push water toward the Eastern Pacific.
Are apparently ignoring this. Must not pay as much to consider that 80% of the islands are growing.
Oh, I see. This entire thread pretty much rips on Arkansas and the Ozarks, but as soon as someone rips on on an inner city, it's racist.
Yeah, but if more people don't leave the Marshall Islands, they might tip over like Guam.
I welcome Pacific Islanders. There is about 3 million people in Micronesia, Polynesia, and Melanesia, and maybe half of them are living on these kinds of marginal atolls.
There are 7.3 million people in Papua New Guinea alone—almost 10 million in Melanesia altogether. Happily, most of them live on volcanic islands which won't be as severely affected by sea level rise. Although, for the record, Vanuatu (where I live) was hit by a record-setting cyclone in March, and is currently enduring drought induced by the worst El Niño in recorded history.
Anyway, far less than half of all Pacific islanders live on low-lying atolls. The population of Kiribati is just over 100,000. Tuvalu is a mere 10,000, Federated States of Micronesia is about 100,000, and the Marshalls are just 52,000.
If the measure of their importance is simply counting lives, these places don't matter much.
But if the measure of importance is that they're the proverbial canary in the coal mine (sorry), then yeah, they kind of matter. And how we treat them is going to set a precedent for how we treat the hundreds of millions who will quickly follow—most of whom are likely to be domestic climate refugees.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
...meet AGW refugees.
"0 Troll"
There is so much irony in some people modding you down - it would stick to a magnet.
Perhaps I was not clear. The irony in the poster modded as a troll, and my comment modded as off topic is a complete denial of AGW, a complete denial of people who live at essentially sea level now being chased out due to rising sea levels.
Perhaps the first time a story about AGW has a reply about AGW, and is apparently off topic to mention AGW in a story about AGW
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Obviously, I was excluding New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, which is where the 3 million figure comes from.
Hence, the 3 million is an upper bound. Great, you're at least thinking along...
Low-lying atolls are a special case: they are temporary to begin with and have always had marginal living conditions. They aren't a "canary in a coal mine" for anything.
That's ludicrous. At about half a meter per century sea level rise, nobody becomes a "climate refugee"; as people's homes age, they will simply rebuild a little further from the coast.
If we don't call out the obvious hypocrisy by making smart-assed comments the oppressors win.
BTW, the science is settled. Then it was again. Oh then they changed it and settled it again.....
Yes it's climate change.
Yes it's always happened.
No it's different now.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.