Despite the fact that capitalism has exploded by dint of manipulating "externalized costs" - THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
Central banks are printing money like its going out style - their style that is. We have had nearly a century of groundwork being laid in what is known as 'human rights'. A concept that lays wide open the fact that the atavistic construct of rule by the most powerful does so by 'externalizing' the rights of those historically designated as the source of value extraction to live according to conscience in sustainable equitable society with others and their natural homes.
The era of the single discipline 'expert' is being revealed to be a delusional metropolis of virtually hermetically sealed silos being poisoned from within. The window that has been opened onto shared histories, as new and invigorating as it is, also occurs as the real liabilities accrued over centuries of abuses now demonstrate the faces and facets of ill gotten wealth requiring the hiding of the dimensions of this predatory methodology.
The confluence of consequences now requires a depth of humility and adaptability; recognizing the intensification of degeneration by the delusions of the dominant model and calls for fearless, loving creativity. That, I would submit, is what human beings are hard-wired for as integral part of this fragile yet stunningly elegant planet mothered by Nature. The true meaning of beauty and wealth has nothing to do with accumulation as mandated by the dominant model which spends untold 'wealth' to configure addictions to 'its' vacuous notions.
The timeless terrestrial birth canal desiccated by the hubris of 'western civilization' can and is giving birth. All of us are called to the task of midwifing and nurturing a process that will take generations.
For the New World Order oligarchy, its all according to plan.
"the recent Syrian drought," which has triggered some of the largest displacements of refugees across the Mediterranean, are a significant part of the roots of the Syrian civil war itself."
"A significant part of the roots of...?" Another way to say it would be "a significant factor in the beginning of." But that does not explain the much more immediate significant factors of heavily armed militias or the significant bombs falling on people's homes. By ignoring this, the writer conveniently appropriates the catastrophe of the ongoing proxy oil war financed and perpetrated by the industrial powers for his own purposes of writing an environmental narrative. Shame.
That the initial unrest in Syria was caused by food shortages is well documented. That that unrest was then used as base for an expanded war on the Iranian border leading to the current Syrian refugee crisis is somehow ignored.
This kind of opportunistic writing in the face of such a human disaster - and the refusal to acknowledge that this is the direct result of Western policies of destabalization does the environmental movement no good at all.
Climate change IS a result of Western policies.... I do not think the author was stating that it is an either or....situation between political policies vs. environmental....he seemed to be saying....hey, let's not leave out ANOTHER CAUSE.... of the migration....CLIMATE DESTABLIZATION....
I understand what he is saying...but...the mitigating factors are left out...there are only 2 things that matter today, money and killing things...if you are just trying to provide for yourself and family forget it...I have read many items written by this author, yes, he cherry picks to get his message out but he does at least do that...in order to include everything that is causing this movement of people/person's it would take a book many inches thick...CC/GW is just one of a long list of things making people shift postions/homelands...it IS just starting and the response seen so far from governments and locals is, well, disgusting...Trump and his Wall :-((( ...from space there are no borders/fences or the causes for them...we, in all likelihood will be on the march soon enough, if you haven't noticed we are no different here in the U.S. of A. than anywhere else other than we have more toys to play with...so ya...maybe he should just write that book but who'll have time to read it since all we can do is fight each other over the scraps that remain...
You misread the article. The quote you cite is from a report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences not by the author. The import of the Academy's report was the extreme drought conditions, the most severe recorded for the area have forced huge numbers of rural peoples into the cities where unrest, shortages and poor conditions were exploited and exacerbated by factions and proxy interests etc. These people then joined the 60 million climate generated refugees trying to enter Europe to escape hopeless situations in their home countries. The National Academy of Sciences makes the point that climate change played a significant part of the causes of the Syrian conflict as these extreme drought conditions are more than 3 years old and predate the current conflict.
The author's piece is not actually discussing the current Syrian migrant situation but that of the 60 million people caused by unrest and conflict due to climate stresses in their countries as well but the main thrust of the piece was that climate change was causing this migration of refugees into Europe from all over.
You read the other posters who happen to have read the article wrong. You and they should read the article for yourselves before you complain about something.
You and the others need to read the article again. The point of the article is that 60 million peoplehave been made refugees by climate change and that extreme climate change is causing extreme drought, famine, civil unrest, wars and destabilization thatis being exploited and exacerbated by proxy interests.
First came the extreme drought, then came the migration of rural peoples into the cities, then came unrest and then came war.
What exactly seems illogical to you in that sequence?
Bravo to Jeff Biggers for having the guts to say it out loud. The distinction between climate refugees and political refugees will never be clear, because the stress induced on societies by encroaching uninhabitable regions and seasons will inevitably provoke political turmoil. Of course American bombs (and those of our proxies) have unleashed untold terror and misery in these regions as well. But we're also seeing the onset of lethal wet-bulb temperatures in the area (see Killing Heat — It Felt Like 165 Degrees in Iran Today).
Biggers addresses the most important social issue of the twenty-first century: how do we deal with the millions whose habitations have been rendered uninhabitable? This is a very difficult question. If it's possible to imagine treating climate refugees as brothers and sisters, then it's possible to imagine that humans might be capable of surviving.
World climate change (overheating, to be perfectly frank) and overpopulation are going to bring about the demise of homo sapiens and a good part of the other spices on our planet. Those who already have, want more while those who have nothing just want to stay alive. As Billie Holiday phrased this aspect of human natural and social behavior:
Yes, the strong gets more
While the weak ones fade
empty pockets don't ever make the grade
I sometimes want to take people who persist, either out of stupidly or the judging the concept of AGW as a hoax, in repeating "the earth is not getting unnaturally hotter or in fact may be getting cooler" and who also insist that the earth can easily support an even larger human population than the 7+ billion it already has, I want to take them and ring their necks or at least pass on condoms. Paul Ehrlich already called the population bomb in the 1970's when it was pushing 5 billion. Few listened. James Hansen called the climate bomb in the early 1990's. Few listened. Folks, it is population growth, over exploitation of resources, global warming, and a myopic view of the world around it that are going to destroy the final generation of humanity.
The title of Werner Herzog's film that retold the story of Kaspar Hauser, "Jeder für sich und Gott gegen alle" ( Everyone for himself and God against all. ) pretty much sums up the fate of humanity. Plan on the callousness of man- and womankind hardening much more and a lot sooner.
The population of Africa is perhaps around 2 billion. What was it 50 years ago?
Rapid population growth in a continent wherein 50% is either desert or marginal land may also have a role to play. However, a 1m rise in sea-level will affect far more than 150 million people.
Leave it to a loyal troop to minimize the role and impact of militarism. It's counterproductive and disingenuous to focus on one causative factor, in this case climate change without giving voice to another significant contributor to the massive refugee crisis. After all, bombed out infrastructure is poor protection against climate chaos; nor are lands tainted by D.U especially productive for farming under the best of conditions.
Do the elites' work for them by making the problem population numbers--they WANT to cull the herd and that is likely one major motivation behind the Middle East wars--rather than the greater truth that a fairly small percentage of persons (and the 1% holds The Title in this category) uses resources on a personal basis that could feed, house, and clothe virtual cities.
So we have the military brigade pushing CLIMATE only and you pushing POPULATION numbers so that all the bombs going off in the distance can be ignored. "Pay no attention" to that military industrial complex's footprint or the catastrophes it leaves in its wake.
Others DO see the truth in spite of your efforts to protect the CHIEF trespasser to peace AND a sustainable climate.
Are we talking about the article or in general?
This article is specifically pointing out that it isn't only the military crisis at cause in the migration of millions. The article isn't denying the role of the wars nor minimizing the effects of the wars in any way. The article is pointing out that the destabilization caused by extreme drought initiated the refugee migration to the cities which set up the crisis situation so that when the wars broke out they had the effect of making these poor people flee what had become an impossible situation simply for survival's sake.
I don't get your point. The article is not denying the role of wars in the refugee crisis it is saying that climate exacerbates conflicts and in many cases have helped create conflicts. The drought came first before the Syrian conflict. The drought came first before Libya (sparked by a food crisis if I remember correctly?) The article is talking about that in the future the continuing climate crisis will cause up to 200 million refugees in a relatively short period of time. This will increase as years go by and climate destabilizes countries everywhere. Personally I think 200 mllion is an underestimate.
The article is about the ongoing effects that extreme drought has caused, among which has been military conflicts. The fact that America joined in like in Syria is not the issue. Had the extreme drought not precipitated unrest in many places in the world, conflicts might have been avoided. Certainly the refugee situation would have been far less critical. Water is being used as a weapon in Syria as another article states. One can understand the desperation of people caught between bullets and thirst.
However if you disagree please quote me where you have found objections in the article so that I might see what you mean. I think people are misreading this article, for example, the author quotes the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences yet people keep saying the author wrote the statement.
I am confused about why you chose me to respond to with this?......hope you get this and fill me in...
I am unable to take the simplstic foreign policy viewpoint. Wars are never so tidy in history although I tend to blame Bush/Cheney's War in Iraq for destabilizing the Middle East which seems like its original intent besides control of the oil. The refugees in Syria were already an issue before the current instability that has become war even started. Refugee camps were overflowing and resources were strained to the limits while we were forcing people to escape the War in Iraq etc.
Mostly however the drought is not recent nor confined to the Middle East. The refugees (one that was mentioned was from Nigeria for example) some 60 million are from all over. To simply write off the effects of drought is nonsensical. No one is excusing America's war making role in the Middle East before or after Bush/Cheney's debacle in Iraq but those destabilizing effects are being compounded by extreme drought as well.
To understand the situation instead of just being angry about it requires factoring in all the variables.
I frankly don't have the time to search through links that people post. Sometimes I will of course but mostly I feel if they don't take the time or make the effort to post the point that they want to make in their own words then I won't do the work that they don't do when trying to make their own point.
Acknowledged and i apologize however I wasn't calling you simple minded btw. I was saying that I am unable to take the simplistic view about the causes of conflicts. A historian's perspective in part. Nothing is ever simple especially foreign policy.
If you were simple minded I wouldn't bother responding to you because I'd have nothing to discuss and I prefer being polite (more or less) and respectful ( more less than more maybe but I try). Don't be so touchy... I hate when people want me to do the work to understand what they mean. I approach things this way
Always make it easy to understand whatever it is that you want people to understand.
Please 'quote reply' where I called you simple minded? I did not do that but if you think I did then show me so that I can avoid misrepresenting my views in the future.