3 ms·

> The places that can weather climate change well will be overrun by refugees from poorer countries that can't. That feels like an argument to convince people

by Zababa 5y ago

> The places that can weather climate change well will be overrun by refugees from poorer countries that can't. That feels like an argument to convince people to do something rather than what will actually happen. A bit like "there is no escape, FIGHT NOW!".

wongarsu 5y ago
That's not really a counter argument. But yes, the conclusion would be to either do something before it's too late or to go to a self-sufficient colony on Mars. There's plenty of other angles that support this, whether that's melting permafrost or the studies that calculate that limiting climate change now is far cheaper than mitigating the consequences later.
- Zababa 5y ago
  It's not a counter argument, but more of a questioning of your argument. I think it's an argument of the same type as Pascal's Wager, though more based on reality. I don't think that there will be no places with a good climate and no refugees, at least that depends on what you consider a "place". Maybe no countries, I could agree with that, and even for that, you could argue that island countries could easily block refugees. All of that to say, it feels like you're saying to people "either you fight climate change, or you will get refugees", while in real life that's not really what will happen, I think. I don't think you're completely wrong, but for example the average person can't really run away from refugees, but also can't make a difference in fighting climate change, so many of them will probably fight climate change and get refugees; while a very rich person can change more things but also run away more easily.
yongjik 5y ago
Depends on what one means by "overrun" - people talk about the European migrant crisis of 2015, with 1.3 million refugees in a year. With climate change, even 100 million is not out of question - it will put a severe strain on every affected country, to put it mildly.

by Zababa 5y ago

wongarsu 5y ago

That's not really a counter argument. But yes, the conclusion would be to either do something before it's too late or to go to a self-sufficient colony on Mars. There's plenty of other angles that support this, whether that's melting permafrost or the studies that calculate that limiting climate change now is far cheaper than mitigating the consequences later.

Zababa 5y ago
It's not a counter argument, but more of a questioning of your argument. I think it's an argument of the same type as Pascal's Wager, though more based on reality. I don't think that there will be no places with a good climate and no refugees, at least that depends on what you consider a "place". Maybe no countries, I could agree with that, and even for that, you could argue that island countries could easily block refugees. All of that to say, it feels like you're saying to people "either you fight climate change, or you will get refugees", while in real life that's not really what will happen, I think. I don't think you're completely wrong, but for example the average person can't really run away from refugees, but also can't make a difference in fighting climate change, so many of them will probably fight climate change and get refugees; while a very rich person can change more things but also run away more easily.

yongjik 5y ago

Depends on what one means by "overrun" - people talk about the European migrant crisis of 2015, with 1.3 million refugees in a year. With climate change, even 100 million is not out of question - it will put a severe strain on every affected country, to put it mildly.