Climate Change Will Stir 'Unimaginable' Refugee Crisis, Says Military (theguardian.com)

Citing military experts, The Guardian is reporting that if the rise in global warming is held under 2 degrees Celsius, there still could be a major humanitarian crisis to sort out. From the report: Climate change is set to cause a refugee crisis of "unimaginable scale," according to senior military figures, who warn that global warming is the greatest security threat of the 21st century and that mass migration will become the "new normal." The generals said the impacts of climate change were already factors in the conflicts driving a current crisis of migration into Europe, having been linked to the Arab Spring, the war in Syria and the Boko Haram terrorist insurgency. Military leaders have long warned that global warming could multiply and accelerate security threats around the world by provoking conflicts and migration. They are now warning that immediate action is required. "Climate change is the greatest security threat of the 21st century," said Maj Gen Munir Muniruzzaman, chairman of the Global Military Advisory Council on climate change and a former military adviser to the president of Bangladesh. He said one metre of sea level rise will flood 20% of his nation. "Weâ(TM)re going to see refugee problems on an unimaginable scale, potentially above 30 million people."

Comments

Re: Better up the Military Budget

[ClickOnThis]

I agree, +1 insightful, but perhaps not for the same reason as yours.

Temperatures are trending upwards. Ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. These are observed facts.

Look at human history. War is a frequent consequence of competition for limited resources. In the case of climate-change, that resource will be land. Land that is not underwater. Land that you can still grow crops on. Land that has not been rendered uninhabitable due to violent weather-fluctuations.

Sadly, preparing a military that can manage such a dystopic future may be a grim necessity.

Re:Will? Would!

[MightyMartian]

Models predict temperature rises, temperature rises are observed. What you're doing is moving the goal posts so you can make it sound like your childish denial has any basis in fact.

Climate Wars: Interesting series on this stuff

[I've Got Three Cats]

A bit dated from 2009, but a good series on future-casting the Geo-politics of climate change. http://gwynnedyer.com/radio/

Re: Better up the Military Budget

[NatasRevol]

Well, desired land perhaps.

All of the people in Florida could fit in Wyoming, at half the population density of Florida currently (estimated in my head).

Even the worst models have water rising a few feet in 100 years. Which wipes out almost all coastal cities, but not a huge percentage of land - for the US at least. So people will have to move. Orderly. Because even at an extreme 1" per year, they can walk away from it.

Now, several other countries are truly fucked. But we don't really need a huge military increase for that.

Re: Better up the Military Budget

[lgw]

There's plenty of land. There will also be plenty of useful farmland - it just might not be the same land that makes good farmland today.

The problem isn't really an overall resource shortage, it's that which land is valuable will change. Wars have certainly started over just that. People will need to move, likely across current borders. How will that end up?

No need for some flood of refugees, though. This is a slow change, by human measure. Plenty of time to work on moving, perhaps emigrating, to where you want to be. It can take years to relocate, but we have years. Make good use of them if you believe in all this.

If your worried about a flood of refugees ruining your home area even though you found a good place, promptly, well, join the club.

What happened to the 50 million climate refugees?

[cirby]

You know, the ones we were already supposed to have?

By 2010?

That was according to the United Nations Environment Program. You know, a bunch of those experts who are telling us about all of the disasters global warming was supposed to have caused by now.

All of the "endangered" places that they talked about have had population increases since then, and no serious out-migration.

Of course, they noticed that prediction had failed spectacularly, so in 2011 they changed the date to 2020.

And no, the trend still hasn't changed.

Not much. I do look at data which may upset you.

[hey!]

The refugee crisis you refer to is actually the second Syrian refugee crisis.

The first refugee was an internal displacement of 1.5 million people (out of a population of 20 million) over the period 2007-2011 during crops failed due to unprecedented drought. Over two hundred villages were completely depopulated, and 40% of Syria's agricultural workforce was lost. Domestic wheat production crashed, and prices skyrocketed as it was replaced by imports.

So you had over a million hungry, unemployed displaced people crowded into cities, when a bad harvest in Russia caused a spike in global wheat prices. Check out the graph in this link labelled "World Monthly Grains Price Index" and note the massive upswing in prices in 2010 - 2011. There was a similar price spike in 2007, but back then Syria produced essentially all the wheat it consumed. In 2010 Syria only produced 80% of what it needed, resulting in underconsumption -- aka "starvation". You can check out the figures here.

Finally note that the so-called "Day of Rage" which critically destabilized the regime took place on March 15, 2011. The timing was not coincidental.

Now you can talk to me about "political struggle" in Syria. The roots of that struggle are of course decades old. But the effects were exacerbated by the worst drought in 900 years.

Without the sarcasm, try to stay on topic lest you continue to be perceived as a shithead Troll.

I have stayed on topic. Shithead troll I guess is a matter of perspective. Syria is exactly the kind of scenario security planners are worried about. And one reason they are worried is that many in the public literally find the idea of climate-driven refugees unimaginable. People who've been paying attention find it all too easy to imagine.

Re:Not much. I do look at data which may upset you

[hey!]

Attempting to simplify the crises in Syria by pointing at climate change seriously under states all other factors. Hell, one of your own links (the usda one) clearly shows that Syria has been able to meet its needs IF allowed via imports

The USDA link shows no such thing; it shows Syria eating up its reserves as it fails to import enough wheat to make up the shortfall. Yes, Assad underwrote the price of bread, but there wasn't enough subsidized bread to meet demand, forcing people to buy non-subsidized bread which increased in price six-fold. The net bread expenditure went up by 20% in a country where many people spend half their income on food.

I'm not a reductionist; situations like this have multiple important factors. The Assad/Islamist thing had been simmering for decades -- generations really. Had that situation been different, the climate shock might not have destabilized the country. In point of fact bread prices were an issue throughout the Middle East and a major factor in the Arab Spring. Syria was arguably better positioned than most other Arab countries, but the stress of having 5% of your population displaced on top of the deep and old fault lines broke the country apart.

This is precisely how climate shock is going to work. It won't be like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water; it'll be formerly rare occurrences happening more frequently and stressing vulnerable populations. Take sea level rise; cities won't drown slpowly, but what was once a hundred year flood will become twenty year flood. That will stress coastal cities, and the results depend on how stable and wealthy a particular city is.

For example were sea level to rise almost a meter by 2100 (as is now within the scope of mainstream positions), the very wealthy coastal city I live in would go the Venice route and build a tidal barrier, which would conservatively cost at least ten billion dollars. Chittagong Bengladesh, however, will be screwed. My city has twice the GDP of Bengladesh as a whole even though it has 3% of the population.