Environmental Refugees

Written By: Reverend Blair
Date: 2004-08-05 12:01:00
<a href="/article/190159635-environmental-refugees">Article Link</a>

What of those in less moderate climates though? What of those who live in less advanced conditions and lack the wealth to successfully weather even a few bad seasons. Northern peoples like the Inuit report seeing wildlife they have never seen before. Animals that have not ventured so far north within even the traditional histories passed down from generation to generation are appearing in the north even as animals that are native to the area are disappearing. Weather and ice conditions have made it difficult for them to travel traditional routes or even to navigate during hunting and fishing trips. The ice goes out earlier and comes in later making any attempt at a traditional lifestyle difficult and threatening the fauna that make such ways of survival even possible. It is not just the people of the far north that are threatened. Some island nations face the complete loss of their countries. They will become, as flood waters rise, environmental refugees. The reality of global warming is a very real thing for the residents of nations like Tuvalu, a nation of 10,000 people living on nine atolls in the South Pacific. A few inches rise in sea level will literally drown their nation. They’ve asked for help, first in trying to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming, second by trying to reach agreements that would allow the Tuvalu people to emigrate when that becomes necessary. The attempts to get other nations to reduce greenhouse emissions fell upon deaf ears. In 2002 the government of Tuvalu began working to enlist other nations to consider a <a href="http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/17514/newsDate/30-Aug-2002/story.htm">lawsuit</a> against the US, the world’s largest producer of greenhouse gasses, and Australia, the world’s worst per capita producer of greenhouse emissions. The lawsuit singled out the US and Australia because they refused to ratify the Kyoto accord. Despite the overwhelming scientific support for global warming both President Bush and Prime Minister Howard reject the Kyoto Accord or mankind’s part in global warming. Their reasons have to do largely with the perceived economic impact that reducing emissions would have on the US and Australia. New Zealand reached an agreement with Tuvalu to accept immigrants. Presently about 75 Tuvaluans are being relocated to New Zealand every year, but there are problems with the agreement. New Zealand has been <a href="http://www.tuvaluislands.com/news/archives/2004/2004-05-06b.htm">turning down</a> some of the Tuvaluan’s as being unsuitable for immigration to New Zealand. At least New Zealand signed an agreement accepting what amount to environmental refugees from Tuvalu. Australia has been reluctant to work on any sort of immigration plan with the government of Tuvalu. In 2002 Australian Immigration minister was <a href="http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0905-02.htm">quoted as saying</a>, ''Why would I agree with that? I think it is on a 30, 40 or 50-year horizon, if it's going to occur at all,'' when asked about the Tuvaluans’ wishes to develop a plan. Tuvalu isn’t the only place facing devastation because of the actions of the rich developed nations. There are many other nations that will be brutally harmed as severe weather becomes more and more common with global warming. <a href="http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/subjindx/122env2.htm">Africa</a> faces increased drought in south and central regions while some of its coastal regions are affected by rising sea levels. North America is also affected. Already native communities in Canada’s north are seeing the effects of global warming. The ice comes in earlier and goes out later. Northern people have reported trouble navigating safely because the ice has become unpredictable and the landmarks they traditionally use have shifted or disappeared. Some northern communities are having to move their houses on a regular basis because the permafrost is melting and there is no longer a solid base for the houses to sit on. In the near future whole communities will be forced to relocate. The <a href="http://www.un.org/works/environment/animalplanet/polarbear.html">polar bear</a>, which many consider an <a href="http://www.pnr-rpn.ec.gc.ca/nature/ecb/da02s14.en.html">indicator species</a>, is already suffering serious challenges with the ice pack in Hudson Bay melting as much as three weeks earlier. The shorter season means less time for the bears to hunt seals. Scientists have documented a 15 percent drop in polar bear birth rates. The polar bear is also subject to toxins within the food chain. Living mostly on seals hunted on the ice pack leaves the bears open to toxins that are sent up the food chain and become concentrated in the fat of seals. Much of the snow and fresh water is also contaminated with pollutants that have travelled north with currents and weather systems. As the northern environment becomes more polluted, the problem increases. Polar bears are not people of course, but as a top predator and consumer of seals they do occupy a similar place in the ecosystem. Human hunters are also dependent on the ice. Human beings are also affected by toxins in the food they eat. <a href="http://www.geocities.com/waterose_test/north.html">“Country food” </a> refers to food gathered from natural sources. Northern animals have high concentrations of fat to protect them from the extreme cold, but that fat is also a place where contaminants like heavy metals and PCBs concentrate and are passed up the food chain, ultimately ending up in the bodies of those that depend on country food to meet their nutritional needs. The contaminants are not local, for the most part. Some do come from the limited local industry and some heavy metals and radiation do come from old DEW line stations, but even these are imported and the local people gain little from the pollution of their environment. The majority of contaminants come on the winds and tides though. These contaminants come from the southern parts of <a href="http://www.carc.org/pubs/v18no3/1.htm">North America and industrialised northern Europe</a> for the most part. Concentrations of herbicides and pesticides commonly used in India are found in the inhabitants of Canada’s north. Tuvalu and Canada’s north are just two examples of the devastation that the lack of environmental consideration has had on people all over the world. Things will get be getting worse in the near future. The warming of the planet will help spread diseases like malaria and Dengue fever to areas they never previously existed. Severe weather will bring more and more disasters. Warming oceans will lead to even more depleted fish stocks and droughts and flooding will lead to food shortages caused by an actual shortage of food instead of an unwillingness to distribute the food we have. The wealthy countries of the north and west, or the wealthy portions of those countries, will be protected from the worst of these effects, at least in the short run, by their wealth and accidents of geography. The wealthiest of these nations are still putting local short-term economic concerns before the impact ecological and economic, that the long term effects of global warming and industrial pollution are bound to have. We are also encouraging developing nations to follow in our footsteps. We should be cleaning up our own act and developing clean technologies not just for our own use, but for use of developing nations as they industrialise. We should be developing plans to deal with the coming tide of environmental refugees. Instead we continue to pollute our own planet and pretend that temporary riches make it worthwhile. We are already in possession of many of the technologies needed to start reducing the harm that we do. We have, for a very long time, been in possession of the knowledge that we are doing is harming ourselves and others. At this point there is no reason except for greed that we do not move as quickly as possible towards environmentally friendly solutions.

There is not yet a consensus on weather ot not "global warming" is a reality and even if it is, what % is human induced(true a majority has been brainwashed to believe in it). Climate changes constantly so it must either get warmer or hotter through time. The climate models used for prediction are still too crude to have any validity. For example they contain unobservable parameters, and solar input which is un-predictable. They cannot even explain the past, such as the Medieval warm period or little ice age. Also, record low temperatures are being recorded in some places so there is a problem of distribution of temperature vs heat content and what we mean by "average" temp of the earth.

Also, there must be benefits to warming, if it is true. We only hear about dooms day scenarios. This whole issue looks to me like an ideological exercise to transfer weaslth from the West to developing nations.

Its a lot of hot air.

I believe the majority of the scientific community that has researched this issue believe there is a global warming trend. The facts aren't there re: the impact of human activities in creating or accelerating this trend however, most seem to feel a better safe than sorry posture is desirable, i.e., reduce carbon dioxide emissions, etc.. The potential outcome of not acting on this seems to pose greater risk for future generations than taking action now.

I don't think most are 'brainwashed' in the manner you mention. If anything the opposite is true otherwise you'd see a broader effort to care for the environment in general.

I believe the theory has been forwarded that the great dinosaur (and other) extinction some 65 million years ago may have been due in part to the effects of a global warming trend triggered or exacerbated by debris injected into the atmosphere as a result of an asteroid impacting the earth and/or significant vulcanic activity.

I kind of assume that if there were benefits anticipated from global warming, our friends at Exxon, GM, etc. would have made sure we were aware of them by now. But then, I'm a trusting sort.

---
Withhold power from those seek it.

Are you a real reverend, or is 'reverend blair' just a handle you use to make yourself sound cool?

The majority of scientists feel that global warming is real, based on the data they have. There is no question if a greenhouse effect is a possibility...it certainly is. The question is how quickly changes will occur and how drastic those changes will be.

Whether man is having an effect is again not the real question. The science shows that releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere causes the temperature to rise and there is no doubt that we are releasing greenhouse gas in massive quantities. The question is how much of an effect we're having.

People in the north who have seen drastic changes within their own life times certainly think it is real. The people a Tuvalu, who are looking at their homeland being washed away are certainly convinced. Since the changes are happening quickly and we are the variable, it certainly points to us being the cause.

Global warming is only part of the problem though. When women in remote villages are showing increased amounts of industrial toxins and heavy metals in their breast milk, there is a real problem with the way we are doing things. All of the scientists on all of the oil industry payrolls can't challenge that at all, can't deny it in the least.

We can either clean up our act now, or pass that task on future generations to deal with under much more dire circumstances.

When the eskimos have to buy ice making equipment so that they can have ice to play hockey on throughout the winter one might deduce that something has gone awry climate wise. Of course if you are a troll paid by the energy industries to post obfuscating propaganda on web sites such as Vive, you would claim lack of information to base decisions on.
When the eskimos have to use GPS's to get around in the winter because the prevailing wind patterns have changed and they can't read the snow ridges you might assume something had gone amiss with the climate. But if you are an anonymouse troll paid by MNC's to pollute the internet with propaganda you would say that we should be thankful for the technology that made GPS's possible.
Do you call yourself anonymouse to be cool or are you just a sniveling corporate apologist?

Are you a real coward, or do you just call yourself anonymous to appear mysterious? Some of the record cold snaps are attributed to the melting of polar ice caps, cooling ocean currents, thereby cooling the winter near certain areas, like we`re seeing in the British Isles. This not only has shifted weather patterns, but it is a short term affect of global warming. The really bad stuff is yet to come. In fact, a satellite picture of Hudson Bay in 1980 in June shows the bay to be still completely covered by ice. In June of 2000, NO ICE! Aside from the industrial pollutants like PCB`s and dioxins found in polar bear fat, I have to agree with the rev here that our exponential acceleration of greenhouse gas emissions, coupled with forest clearcutting, has indeed, created a dangerous imbalance!

---
Dave Ruston

It is really strange to think that anyone could really believe that pollution to the degree which the industrialized nations contribute could not effect our planet. These same people will complain that second hand smoke from a cigarette is killing them, and yet deny that burning coal into the atmosphere is having no effect, destroying rain forests and its effect on the environment is just hype! I don't get it, drop one small drop of cianide into a glass of water and offer it to any adult and it's highly doubtful they would drink it, yet when you consider all the pollutants in our water supply from industry, agriculture and mostly our greed and people think it purifies itself magicly. That might be possible if the level of pollutants wasn't astronimical, but hey let's not worry about that, we'll just conquer another planet when we are through destroying this one, let's just head off to Mars.

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Oh and great article Rev, I really enjoy your writing, well researched and well written!

---
If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

Thanks, Whelan.

I really wonder what we're going to do with all the environmental refugees when it gets serious enough that we have to do something. We're seeing what amount to small warnings right now, yet nobody seems to be working on a real plan.

Hi kiddies! now listen up - every day a choo-choo train goes right past my backyard and my neighbours doggie barks and tries to chase the bad train, poor doggie, the fence keeps him away from the bad train so he can only bark. But, we're happy that the doggie chases the train away every day, we have no train problems in our neighbourhood!
- This kind of analysis should be very familiar to the globally warm 'scientists', perhaps they would like to write a paper on my neighbours dog too!

The global warming political movement is an attempt to transfer control of wealth and power to giant statist bureaucracies - the result would be similar to the environmental catastrophes that haunted the Eastern Bloc countries prior to their collapse.
'Scientists' attributing so much devastation and destruction to a single gas that occurs naturally is laughable, climate processes are affected by variables as yet undiscovered and these guys are gonna tell us what the weather will be like in a hundred years, ludicrous, the fifth day of a five day forecast is only accurate 20% of the time. The one thing these 'scientists' do know well is how to market doomsday scenarios and consequently reap research grant rewards.

I agree. I have studied in detail one of the main math models in use(I lost it and the link so don't ask for it). It consists of 3 sub-models, one for atmosphere over land, one ove poles and one over ocean, all coupled. The sheer complexity requires linearization, parameter estimation and does not include forcing functions such as the Sun and cosmic rays. Also no volcanic effects etc. This model is 10 years old and constantly updated. Every update reduces the predicted temperature .
I agree with anon about the wealth transfer issue. And BTW there are lots of research articles which dispute CO2 and human effects being major causes, if indeed warming is even occuring.

Might be helpful if you could provide details as to the specif nature of the mechanism through which this wealth transfer will occur. I have a pretty good idea of what you mean but, would like to see it in writing.

I've read a few articles that contain the research grant comment. Beyond the fact that these articles have been on sites that a bit of research has indicated receive funding from specific corporate sources, I have a hard time believing that so many in the scientific community would jump on the bandwagon just to grab a grant.

What I don't have a hard time believing is that corporations that make a buck through activities that poison the environment and have in the past been a bit negligent in taking appropriate environmental protection measures when these could impact the bottom line wouldn't see a problem in disseminating information of dubious value.

It comes down to risk. What happens if those concerned with global warming are wrong and what happens if those unconcerned are?

You avoided my question. What kind of a reverend are you? I'm I right in suggesting that 'reverend blair' is just a silly handle you use to make yourself sound cool?

If one looks at the latest global average temperature data, including estimated temperatures from the little ice age, the graph, (temp vs time) looks like a hockey stick on its side, with the blade pointing up at the right (ie: present). The averages were obtained based on data obtained from glacier core samples from Antarctica. The average temperatures we are seeing now are by far higher than anything seen in the core sample. This is troubling in the extreme.

There is a saying in design, keep it simple stupid(KISS). An important principle that doctors follow: Do no harm. This is a principle which should be used more frequently, maybe not rigidly, but in principle.

What is global warming is real? By all accounts we are screwed. Remember what people used to think about fish stocks….look at the cod fishery in Canada. Remember what industrialists thought about the oceans, an infinite sink for pollution. Think about what we know about these things now…Please.

Here is a theory I have about global warming…the burning of fossil fuels is an exothermic (energy releasing) process. The creation of fossil fuels (coal, oil) is endothermic (energy consuming) . Think about this: how long did it take to form all of the oil and coal deposits that we have burned in the past 100 years, but especially the last 20 years? Where did the energy come from to form all of these fossil fuels? Those fossil fuels started out as CO2 in our atmosphere, at a time when the surface temperature of the earth was a great deal warmer. They also took probably on the order of millions of years to form. So it also took a large amount of solar energy. Also recall that at the time when the fossil fuels were created, the levels of the oceans were much much higher than they are today.

So we are releasing in a very short period of time a huge amount of energy in a sphere suspended in a vacuum. The heat has nowhere to go. The oceans, land and glaciers will have a certain amount of capacity to absorb the heat before we see any real change in temperature. Think about heating (at a constant rate of heat input) a glass of ice that is at -20C…first the ice heats gradually to about 0C, and then starts melting. While the ice melts the temperature of the mixture is stuck at about 0C. [It takes a great deal of energy to cause a change in state (from solid to liquid) compared to the energy required to heat the liquid or solid 1C] Then once all the ice melts, the water really starts warming up.

Another thing to consider is that the oceans will not act as a uniform heat sink. Any large body of water has different layers, which are at different temperatures. Surface temperatures would likely rise more quickly, but as the oceans warm, the polar ice, glacier fed rivers and other heat (or cold if you will) sinks will melt, thereby somewhat mitigating the temperature rise in the oceans.

I am no expert on the phenomenon of global warming, but when you look at this aspect of human activity in simple terms, it seems clear to me.

To concede a point to our anonymous friends, it also seems clear to me that yes the industrialized west (of which I am a part) does stand to lose economically, in the short term. However, it is also pretty clear to most scientists that we are on the down slope of the world oil production curve, and that we will be running out of easily accessible oil soon (20-70 years).

Given the above we have a huge head start on the rest of the world. We need to start adapting to the new reality that we will face, probably in the lifetimes of today’s youth (<30years old). We should at this point seek to do two key things:
1) Drastically reduce energy consumption.
2) While cheap energy is still available develop and optimize alternate means of energy production

Given our current system of government, and the corporate domination thereof, both of the above key actions seem unlikely to be undertaken as they would undermine the profitability (to shareholders) of the controllers of our government for obvious reasons.