In the old days, land could be stolen from native Americans and parcelled out for self-supporting, productive use to almost anyone with a few basic farm tools. Furthermore the vast majority of immigrants were relatively socially, culturally and racially similar to the existing population (although even then there were significant frictions).
These days, everything is already owned. Self-reliance doesn't quite exist the same way - subsistence farming ain't going to cut it. Citizens don't necessarily want to accept people: the USA after all controls immigration. For instance, about as many immigrants naturalising in the USA have a degree as non-immigrant Americans: immigration is deliberately attempting to select for high-skill and high-productivity workers. That's very different from what is liable to happen with a wave of refugees. Plus I shouldn't need to tell a Republican voter how hostile people can get about immigrants from other races and cultures, especially if they are poor and may require substantial human development.
None of that answered the question. If the situation is so different, why is there just as much migration now as there was 100 years ago?
But that is what the sources said, isn't it ? Not that every single forest fire is caused by climate change but that there will be
more forest fires. That the situation of forest fires in Canada specifically is about to worsen.
Here, directly from the article
Declining snow, increasing temperatures and worsening droughts are all hallmarks of climate change and are projected to keep driving larger and more intense fires across Canada, according to Environment Canada.
And they even provide a link to the analysis
Climate change during the 21st century is expected to result in more frequent fires in many boreal forests, with severe environmental and economic consequences.
Fire-prone conditions are predicted to increase across Canada. This could potentially result in a doubling of the amount of area burned by the end of this century, compared with amounts burned in recent decades. Boreal forests, which have been greatly influenced by fire through history, will likely be especially affected by this change.
So the expectation is a doubling of the area burned on average per year in Canada due to climate change,
That is not what the sources say, because the sources don't want to say something they know is wrong. They say that effects of climate change coincide with markers of risk of wildfire, or talk about the attribution of a particular fire to climate change. The source there talks about some of the forests burning more while southern parts actually burn less from increased rain.
Here's the situation long term: wildfires in Canada are going to dramatically decrease due to climate change. I know this, and so do most of the people doing these studies, which is why they are careful not to say explicitly wildfires are going to increase. A change in climate is absolutely going to destroy those forests as we know them, but it's not wildfires that will end them, wildfires in that region have likely been there longer than people have.
The killer is going to be deciduous tress. The boreal forests burn the way they do not because they get too hot, but because they stay so cold that evergreens are well adapted to be the dominant vegetation. If the climate warms up, which is to my knowledge especially rapid in high latitudes, and if the region gets a little more rain and little more humidity, it's not going to suddenly be too wet for pine trees to burn, but it is going to be the right conditions for deciduous trees to move in and space out the dense needly trees that are so prone to explode.
The majority of the Earth is warmer than Canada and burns way less. It's silly not to make that connection.
They say the fire risk will increase. The fire potential will increase.
But they don't say "fires will increase", do they?
