Climate Nearing “Point of No Return”

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
8,053
2,426
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I kind of agree, but also it's not really a complicated idea that there can be multiple points of no return as we get further and further away from where we want to be
It seems like it's too complicated an idea for boomers to handle.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,769
694
118
This whole mess is utterly depressing.
We have known for nearly 30 years what the issues are.

At first it was "Let's just wait for better science to be sure before committing to anything".
Then "Seems like we really should do something. But it is not urgent, so let's put our energy to urgent problems first".
Then "Ok, we really need to do something. Let's agree where we want to end up. And then let's just assume that we will get there and leave the details for later".
Then "Sure, maybe we should start doing something if we ever want to get to what was agreed on. But let's take it slowly so people get used to it and to the more drastic changes as late as possible"
Then "Oh, seems like we won't make it. Oh, well, the targets were not realistic in the first place, maybe we should just change them to what we know what we will achieve"

And that is without the actual climate change deniers who are another category of horrible.

Honorable mention to all the governments making promises but planning any difficult measures for future election cycles.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,797
3,641
118
This whole mess is utterly depressing.
We have known for nearly 30 years what the issues are.

At first it was "Let's just wait for better science to be sure before committing to anything".
Then "Seems like we really should do something. But it is not urgent, so let's put our energy to urgent problems first".
Then "Ok, we really need to do something. Let's agree where we want to end up. And then let's just assume that we will get there and leave the details for later".
Then "Sure, maybe we should start doing something if we ever want to get to what was agreed on. But let's take it slowly so people get used to it and to the more drastic changes as late as possible"
Then "Oh, seems like we won't make it. Oh, well, the targets were not realistic in the first place, maybe we should just change them to what we know what we will achieve"

And that is without the actual climate change deniers who are another category of horrible.

Honorable mention to all the governments making promises but planning any difficult measures for future election cycles.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,227
805
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
News to me.



Highly debatable.



We don't know everything about everything, but everything we do know points to the facts that:

a) The planet is getting warmer

b) The warming is driven by human activities

c) There's more CO2 in the atmosphere right now than at any point for the last 800,000 years

d) Global average temperatures have risen about 1.2/1.3 degrees since the industrial revolution, and things get worse the greater the warming

e) Ice cover is diminishing, corals are bleaching, sea levels are rising, etc.

Yes, we don't know everything about everything (for instance, the science of tipping points is largely up in the air), but everything we do points to what I've said above and more.



The models have been accurate, and if anything, have been too conservative in a lot of areas.

And before you say anything, less, not every projection has come true. For instance, until a few decades ago, we were on a modelled pathway to 4 degrees of warming by 2100, right now, the consensus is more like 3 degrees, and if we meet every goal of the Paris Accord (fat chance), we're looking at about 1.8 degrees. There's uncertainty in projections, yes, but all the projections point in the same direction, and the direction is bad.



Do it where it already exists, I'm less sure about doing it where it doesn't.

The price of nuclear has only gone up, the price of renewables has gone down. Storage is the main Achilles heel, and even there, things are going down.



Yes, there was nothing we could do against Covid. Except, y'know, wear masks, sanitize hands, vacinate...nothing at all...

Fun fact, Covid was one of the least severe pandemics in human history, and a lot of that is due to how much better we've got at responding to them.



That's debatable. But even then, meat has far more impact on the environment (especially beef) than vegetables. Even if we accept that meat is healthier than vegetables/fruit, that doesn't change the facts on the ground.
Yes, it is debatable, that's the point...

Per the chart in the linked report, nuclear is rather cheap. I'm not a fan of all these energy techs that all require batteries. I'm fully for switching from fossil fuels to better and more sustainable (long-term) energy solutions but trying to do hard-stops on fossil fuels is a bad idea, we need the energy from them to transition to new energy types.

There's no evidence masks did anything. Definitely no evidence of washing hands did anything (because covid hardly spreads on surfaces). Even every cost-benefit analysis on lockdowns says they provided negligible benefits at best and their costs were greater than their benefits. Simply just telling people to avoid gathering in public groups INSIDE and staying within their normal family/friend bubbles was all that needed to be communicated. When I say there was nothing we could really do to stop covid doesn't include vaccines because they weren't available right away. Sure, if vaccines were available right away, then yeah, give everyone a shot and continue on like normal but that wasn't the case. Also, once vaccines are available, you can stop doing everything else (which didn't happen...).

Our covid response caused more harm than benefit but if you wanna say we got better at responding to a pandemic, you can believe that. Sweden did perhaps the best (depending on what metrics you wanna go off of) or very close to the best in Europe when they had the least restrictions and least "response" to covid.

Beef being some huge issue is debatable, that's the point...

No no no, see, if something doesn't fix 100% of the problem 100% of the time, it's not worth doing at all. Perfection is the logical and accepted enemy of good
Nope, there's literally no evidence that masks actually did anything. Lockdowns/restrictions only caused more harms than benefits. These things literally showed no evidence of working or made things worse.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,389
6,914
118
Country
United States
Nope, there's literally no evidence that masks actually did anything. Lockdowns/restrictions only caused more harms than benefits. These things literally showed no evidence of working or made things worse.
Exactly. Travel restrictions do nothing to stop the spread of disease. You are so very, very smart
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,227
805
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Exactly. Travel restrictions do nothing to stop the spread of disease. You are so very, very smart
So you are smarter than these doctors and researchers? How don't you guys get this yet, you're not arguing with me but these experts and doctors and I'm just repeating their findings and messages. Show me a single actual cost-benefit analysis showing lockdowns and restrictions provided more benefits than harms, I still haven't seen a single one that says that.

Obviously, the travel restrictions didn't work since the virus made it's way to every continent. There's just so much travel now that unless we got really lucky and stopped the virus in Wuhan, it was making it's way across the globe because it was airborne and transmissible prior to symptoms. You're acting like these aren't the facts when they very much obviously are the facts.
 
Last edited:

XsjadoBlayde

~it ends here~
Apr 29, 2020
3,242
3,372
118
The likeliest scenario based on present day western political power is vast "passive" genocide by nations more interested in arming their borders than curving anthropomorphic climate change. It will get very fucking ugly. And I don't think most people are prepared to comprehend or approach such horror. If you're seeing increases in militarisation of not only borders, but also climate protests, it is indeed time to start growing quite concerned. Though instead of giving in to despair (which I understand only too well), seek like minded communities, solidarity with movements who have plans and political goals invested directly in avoiding this future. None of them are going to be perfect, humans are inherently messy creatures, however our numbers are our greatest bargaining tool.



This report finds that the world’s biggest emitters of green house gases are spending, on average, 2.3 times as much on arming their borders as they are on climate finance. This figure is as high as 15 times as much for the worst offenders. This “Global Climate Wall” aims to seal off powerful countries from migrants, rather than addressing the causes of displacement.

Executive summary
The world’s wealthiest countries have chosen how they approach global climate action – by militarising their borders. As this report clearly shows, these countries – which are historically the most responsible for the climate crisis – spend more on arming their borders to keep migrants out than on tackling the crisis that forces people from their homes in the first place.

This is a global trend, but seven countries in particular – responsible for 48% of the world’s historic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions – collectively spent at least twice as much on border and immigration enforcement (more than $33.1 billion) as on climate finance ($14.4 billion) between 2013 and 2018.

These countries have built a ‘Climate Wall’ to keep out the consequences of climate change, in which the bricks come from two distinct but related dynamics: first, a failure to provide the promised climate finance that could help countries mitigate and adapt to climate change; and second, a militarised response to migration that expands border and surveillance infrastructure. This provides booming profits for a border security industry but untold suffering for refugees and migrants who make increasingly dangerous – and frequently deadly – journeys to seek safety in a climate-changed world.

Key findings:
Climate-induced migration is now a reality


  • Climate change is increasingly a factor behind displacement and migration. This may be because of a particular catastrophic event, such as a hurricane or a flash flood, but also when the cumulative impacts of drought or sea-level rise, for example, gradually make an area uninhabitable and force entire communities to relocate.
  • The majority of people who become displaced, whether climate-induced or not, remain in their own country, but a number will cross international borders and this is likely to increase as climate-change impacts on entire regions and ecosystems.
  • Climate-induced migration takes place disproportionately in low-income countries and intersects with and accelerates with many other causes for displacement. It is shaped by the systemic injustice that creates the situations of vulnerability, violence, precarity and weak social structures that force people to leave their homes.
Rich countries spend more on militarising their borders than on providing climate finance to enable the poorest countries to help migrants


  • Seven of the biggest emitters of GHGs – the United States, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, Canada, France and Australia – collectively spent at least twice as much on border and immigration enforcement (more than $33.1 billion) as on climate finance ($14.4 billion) between 2013 and 2018.1
  • Canada spent 15 times more ($1.5 billion compared to around $100 million); Australia 13 times more ($2.7 billion compared to $200 million); the US almost 11 times more ($19.6 billion compared to $1.8 billion); and the UK nearly two times more ($2.7 billion compared to $1.4 billion).
  • Border spending by the seven biggest GHG emitters rose by 29% between 2013 and 2018. In the US, spending on border and immigration enforcement tripled between 2003 and 2021. In Europe, the budget for the European Union (EU) border agency, Frontex, has increased by a whopping 2763% since its founding in 2006 up to 2021.
  • This militarisation of borders is partly rooted in national climate security strategies that since the early 2000s have overwhelmingly painted migrants as ‘threats’ rather than victims of injustice. The border security industry has helped promote this process through well-oiled political lobbying, leading to ever more contracts for the border industry and increasingly hostile environments for refugees and migrants.
  • Climate finance could help mitigate the impacts of climate change and help countries adapt to this reality, including supporting people who need to relocate or to migrate abroad. Yet the richest countries have failed even to keep their pledges of meagre $100 billion a year in climate finance. The latest figures from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reported $79.6 billion in total climate finance in 2019, but according to research published by Oxfam International, once over-reporting, and loans rather than grants are taken into account, the true volume of climate finance may be less than half of what is reported by developed countries.
  • Countries with the highest historic emissions are fortifying their borders, while those with lowest are the hardest hit by population displacement. Somalia, for example, is responsible for 0.00027% of total emissions since 1850 but had more than one million people (6% of the population) displaced by a climate-related disaster in 2020.

The border security industry is profiteering from climate change


  • The border security industry is already profiting from the increased spending on border and immigration enforcement and expects even more profits from anticipated instability due to climate change. A 2019 forecast by ResearchAndMarkets.com predicted that the Global Homeland Security and Public Safety Market would grow from $431 billion in 2018 to $606 billion in 2024, and a 5.8% annual growth rate. According to the report, one factor driving this is ‘climate warming-related natural disasters growth’.
  • Top border contractors boast of the potential to increase their revenue from climate change. Raytheon says ‘demand for its military products and services as security concerns may arise as results of droughts, floods, and storm events occur as a result of climate change’. Cobham, a British company that markets surveillance systems and is one of the main contractors for Australia’s border security, says that ‘changes to countries [sic] resources and habitability could increase the need for border surveillance due to population migration’.
  • As TNI has detailed in many other reports in its Border Wars series,2 the border security industry lobbies and advocates for border militarisation and profits from its expansion.
The border security industry also provides security to the oil industry that is one of main contributors to the climate crisis and even sit on each other’s executive boards


  • The world’s 10 largest fossil fuel firms also contract the services of the same firms that dominate border security contracts. Chevron (ranked the world’s number 2) contracts with Cobham, G4S, Indra, Leonardo, Thales; Exxon Mobil (ranking 4) with Airbus, Damen, General Dynamics, L3Harris, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin; BP (6) with Airbus, G4S, Indra, Lockheed Martin, Palantir, Thales; and Royal Dutch Shell (7) with Airbus, Boeing, Damen, Leonardo, Lockheed Martin, Thales, G4S.
  • Exxon Mobil, for example, contracted L3Harris (one of the top 14 US border contractors) to provide ‘maritime domain awareness’ of its drilling in the Niger delta in Nigeria, a region which has suffered tremendous population displacement due to environmental contamination. BP has contracted with Palantir, a company that controversially provides surveillance software to agencies like the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to develop a ‘repository of all operated wells historical and real time drilling data’. Border contractor G4S has a relatively long history of protecting oil pipelines, including the Dakota Access pipeline in the US.
  • The synergy between fossil fuel companies and top border security contractors is also seen by the fact that executives from each sector sit on each other’s boards. At Chevron, for example, the former CEO and Chairman of Northrop Grumman, Ronald D. Sugar and Lockheed Martin’s former CEO Marilyn Hewson are on its board. The Italian oil and gas company ENI has Nathalie Tocci on its board, previously a Special Advisor to EU High Representative Mogherini from 2015 to 2019, who helped draft the EU Global Strategy that led to expanding the externalisation of EU borders to third countries.

This nexus of power, wealth and collusion between fossil fuel firms and the border security industry shows how climate inaction and militarised responses to its consequences increasingly work hand in hand. Both industries profit as ever more resources are diverted towards dealing with the consequences of climate change rather than tackling its root causes. This comes at a terrible human cost. It can be seen in the rising death toll of refugees, deplorable conditions in many refugee camps and detention centres, violent pushbacks from European countries, particularly those bordering the Mediterranean, and from the US, in countless cases of unnecessary suffering and brutality. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) calculates that 41,000 migrants died between 2014 and 2020, although this is widely accepted to be a significant underestimate given that many lives are lost at sea and in remote deserts as migrants and refugees take increasingly dangerous routes to safety.

The prioritisation of militarised borders over climate finance ultimately threatens to worsen the climate crisis for humanity. Without sufficient investment to help countries mitigate and adapt to climate change, the crisis will wreak even more human devastation and uproot more lives. But, as this report concludes, government spending is a political choice, meaning that different choices are possible. Investing in climate mitigation in the poorest and most vulnerable countries can support a transition to clean energy – and, alongside deep emission cuts by the biggest polluting nations – give the world a chance to keep temperatures below 1.5°C increase since 1850, or pre-industrial levels. Supporting people forced to leave their homes with the resources and infrastructure to rebuild their lives in new locations can help them adapt to climate change and to live in dignity. Migration, if adequately supported, can be an important means of climate adaptation.

Treating migration positively requires a change of direction and greatly increased climate finance, good public policy and international cooperation, but most importantly it is the only morally just path to support those suffering a crisis they played no part in creating.




I've had an obsession with maps ever since I first sought my bearings in Winnie the Pooh's "Hundred Aker Wood", trying to discover where was "nice for piknicks", and the locations of the characters' houses. My childhood was spent studying and drawing treasure maps, charting imaginary lands and plotting routes to faraway places I longed to visit.

Today, my home is plastered with the maps I've collected or been given – reminders of places that are special to me. By my desk, I have a large world map, the continents distinguished from the oceans by their mosaic of colours. Each coloured patch is a country, separated from its neighbour by a neat line drawn onto this two-dimensional representation of our world.


The borders are cleanly defined, ink separating nationalities destined for different fates. For me, these lines mark exciting possibilities, with the potential for exploration and adventure, to visit foreign cultures with different foods and languages. For others, they are prison walls that limit all possibilities.

Borders define our fate, our life expectancy, our identity, and so much more. Yet they are an invention just like the maps I used to draw. Our borders don't exist as immutable facets of the landscape, they are not natural parts of our planet, and were invented relatively recently.

It can be argued, however, that most of these imaginary lines are not fit for the world of the 21st Century with its soaring population, dramatic climate change and resource scarcity. Indeed, the idea of keeping foreign people out using borders is relatively recent. States used to be far more concerned about stopping people from leaving than preventing their arrival. They needed their labour and taxes, and emigration still poses a headache for many states.

There are, however, true human borders set not by politics or hereditary sovereigns, but by the physical properties of our planet. These planetary borders for our mammal species are defined by geography and climate. Humans cannot live in large numbers in Antarctica or in the Sahara Desert, for instance. As global temperatures increase, causing climate change, sea level rise and extreme weather over the coming decades, large parts of the world that are home to some of the biggest populations will become increasingly hard to live in. Coastlines, island states and major cities in the tropics will be among the hardest hit, according to predictions by climate scientists.

Unable to adapt to increasingly extreme conditions, millions – or even billions – of people will need to move.
Borders are often now a barrier to movement, but might that have to change in the future? (Credit: Nicolas Economou/Getty Images)

Borders are often now a barrier to movement, but might that have to change in the future? (Credit: Nicolas Economou/Getty Images)

The most densely populated areas of the planet are clustered around the 25-26th north parallels which has traditionally been the latitude of most comfortable climate and fertile land. An estimated 279 million people are packed into this thin band of land, which cuts through countries including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, the United States and Mexico.

But the conditions here are changing. On average, climate niches – the range of conditions at which species can normally exist – around the world are moving polewards at a pace of 1.15m (3.8ft) per day, although it's far faster in some places. Adapting to the changing climate will mean chasing our own shifting niche – which for much of human history has been within the temperature range -11C to 15C (12F to 59F) – as it migrates north from the equator. True livability limits are the borders we must worry about as the world warms over this century, bringing unbearable heat, drought, floods, fires, storms, and coastal erosion that make agriculture impossible and displace people.

Already record numbers of people are being forced to flee their homes with each passing year. In 2021, there were 89.3 million people, double the number forcibly displayed a decade ago, and in 2022 that number reached 100 million, with climate disasters displacing many more people than conflicts. Floods displaced 33 million people in Pakistan this year, while millions more in Africa have been affected by drought and the threat of famine, from the Horn of Africa to the continent's west coast.

UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi appealed to global leaders at the COP27 climate change conference to take bold action to tackle the humanitarian consequences of global warming. That change needs to be "transformational" according to the UNHRC. "We cannot leave millions of displaced people and their hosts to face the consequences of a changing climate alone," says Grandi.
Migrants contribute around 10% of global GDP or $6.7tn (£5.9tn)
Without action, hundreds of millions people will have to leave their homes by 2050, according some estimates. One study from 2020 predicts that by 2070, depending on scenarios of population growth and warming, "one to three billion people are projected to be left outside the climate conditions that have served humanity well over the past 6,000 years".

With so many people on the move, will this mean that invented political borders, ostensibly imposed for national security, become increasingly meaningless? The threat posed by climate change and its social repercussions dwarf those surrounding national security. Heatwaves already kill more people than those who die as a direct result of violence in wars.

Compounding this, the global population is still growing, particularly in some of the regions worst hit by climate change and poverty. Populations in Africa are set to almost triple by 2100, even as those elsewhere slow in growth. This means there will be a greater number of people in the very areas that are likely to be worst affected by extreme heat, drought and catastrophic storms. A greater number of people will also need food, water, power, housing and resources, just as these become ever harder to supply.

Meanwhile, most countries in the Global North are facing a demographic crisis in which people are not having enough babies to support an ageing population. Managed mass migration could thus help with many of the world's biggest problems, reducing the number of people living in poverty and climate devastation, and helping northern economies build their workforce.

But the main barrier is our system of bordersmovement restrictions either imposed by someone's own state or by the states they wish to enter. Today just over 3% of the global population are international migrants. However, migrants contribute around 10% of global GDP or $6.7tn (£5.9tn) – some $3tn (£2.6tn) more than they would have produced in their origin countries. Some economists, such as Michael Clemens at the Center for Global Development in the US, calculate that enabling free movement could double global GDP. In addition, we would see an increase in cultural diversity, which studies show improves innovation. At a time when we have to solve unprecedented environmental and social challenges, it could be just what is needed.

After WW2, Britain encouraged migration from Commonwealth countries to help make up for labour shortages (Credit: Haywood Magee/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

After WW2, Britain encouraged migration from Commonwealth countries to help make up for labour shortages (Credit: Haywood Magee/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

HOW TO THINK ABOUT X

This series will change the way you look at the world. Whether it's the concept of "time", "consumerism", or even "creativity", many of us tend to think about – and define – certain ideas in the ways we’ve been taught. But how did our conceptualisation of these big ideas evolve? How to Think About X searches for new ideas about our lives, the concepts that govern them and our future.

Removing borders or making them far more flexible, especially to labour flows, has the potential to improve humanity's resilience to the stresses and shocks of global climate change. Managed well, migration could benefit everyone.

What if we thought of the planet as a global commonwealth of humanity, in which people were free to move wherever they wanted? We'd need a new mechanism to manage global labour mobility far more effectively and efficiently – it is our biggest economic resource, after all. There are already wide-ranging global trade deals for the movement of other resources and products, but few that deal with labour movement.

Some 60% of the world's population is under the age of 40, half of these (and growing) under 20, and they will form most of the world's people for the rest of this century. Many of these young, energetic jobseekers are likely to be among those moving as the climate changes – will they add to economic growth to build sustainable societies, or will their talents be wasted?

The conversation about migration has become stuck on what ought to be allowed, rather than planning for what will occur. I believe nations need to move on from the idea of controlling migration to managing migration. At the very least, we need new mechanisms for lawful economic labour migration and mobility, and far better protection for those fleeing danger. Everyone could be offered an official form of United Nations citizenship in addition to their birth citizenship. For some people, such as those born in refugee camps, lacking papers, or citizens of small island states that will cease to exist later this century, UN citizenship may well be their only access to international recognition and assistance, even though citizenship is a human right. Passports could be issued on the back of this.

The political theorist David Held argued that we have outgrown our national boundaries through increasing globalisation, and now live in "overlapping communities of fate" from where we should form a cosmopolitan democracy at a global level. Today, we are experiencing a planetary crisis and I believe it is time to see ourselves as members of one globally dispersed species that must cooperate to survive. The scale of the climate crisis requires new global cooperation and, I believe, new international citizenship with global bodies for migration and for the biosphere – new authorities that are paid for by our taxes and to which nation states are accountable.

Currently, the United Nations has no executive powers over nation states, but that may well need to change if we are to bring down global temperatures, reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and restore the world's biodiversity. Global governance could also be useful in coordinating the vast new mobile workforce, perhaps using an international quota system to help allocate people to positions during the mass climate migrations of this century. But it would also face challenges created by bureaucracy, corruption and lobbying by powerful corporations.
Nations are communities that do things together – David Miller
Underpinning global governance, however, there also needs to be strong states. The tension between the desires and needs of the individual and society are very real for us all, and hard enough to reconcile when our society is a small, closely knit group, let alone the population of the whole planet. It's hard to care, for example, about a nameless, faceless stranger in a country you've never visited when making choices about your own life in a city thousands of miles from them. Most people find hard to balance the needs of a stranger one street away. Successful nation states help to manage this with structures and institutions that ensure a useful level of cooperation between strangers that nurtures a strong society in which we all can succeed. We willingly make small, daily sacrifices of time, energy and resources as individuals – paying taxes, for instance – to ensure our societies operate. Most of us do this because it's our society, our social family, our nation state.

The invention of the nation state has been a very powerful tool in enabling us to cooperate so well. As the political theorist David Miller put it: "Nations are communities that do things together."

It would seem unwise, then, to try to completely dismantle or abandon our existing geopolitical system in the brief time we have to prepare for the massive disruption that is expected to occur over the course of this century.

Only strong nation states will be capable of setting up the systems of governance that will help our species survive climate change. Only strong nation states will be able to manage a massive movement of migrants from different geographies and cultures to the native population.

It may instead require a blend between internationalism and nationalism.

In recent decades, the growth of globalisation has led to greater internationalism – a citizen of London may often feel more commonality with a citizen of Amsterdam or Taiwan than with someone from a small country town in Britain. This may not matter for many successful urbanites, but natives of more rural areas can feel left behind by their own country as once dominant industries decline, and social spaces and cultural traditions dwindle away. This creates resentment and fear of the kind that can lead to prejudice against immigrants, as was seen in parts of the UK during the Brexit debate.

Flooding in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan have displaced millions of people in 2022 (Credit: Biju Boro/AFP/Getty Images)

Flooding in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan have displaced millions of people in 2022 (Credit: Biju Boro/AFP/Getty Images)

Open borders do not have to mean no borders or the abolition of nation states, though. It may be necessary to explore different types of nation states, with different governance options. Will states that are most affected by climate change buy or rent territory in safer places? Or will we see charter cities that operate under different jurisdictions and rules to the territory surrounding them, or floating states that build new territory on the waves?

It will take work to reinvent the concept of the nation state so it becomes more inclusive so that it strengthens local connections while forging greater and more equitable global networks. There are multiple benefits in encouraging commonality, a kinship with our fellows, based on our shared societal project, language and cultural works. These traits matter to people enough to make patriotism a powerful source of identity.

So why not also engender patriotic feeling about our nations' air, land and water, to encourage people to look after them.? One approach, since we all face environmental threats, might be to enlist military and other security institutions in the struggle against climate change. National service for younger citizens and immigrants to help with disaster relief, nature restoration, agricultural and social efforts could be another solidarity-creating step. And we may need to restore or invent new national traditions that are environmentally or socially beneficial, and for which citizens can feel pride and respect. These could include social groups and clubs that sing, create, play sport or perform together, and to which members can belong for life. These traditions can help maintain dignity in hard times and provide patriotic meaning for immigrants to assimilate to.

The new patriotic narrative could be about civic nationalism, based on the common good, with rights and duties, and a passionate cultural attachment to nature, and to protecting and conserving places of national (or international) importance.

Costa Rica, for instance, embraced the term pura vida, broadly meaning "good life", as a national ethos, mantra and identity. Its use became widespread from the 1970s, when refugees from the violent conflicts in neighbouring Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador relocated to the country in large numbers. Costa Rica, a small Central American country that has no standing army and instead invests heavily in nature protection and restoration alongside social services such as health and education, used this outlook on life to help define its character and integrate new immigrants.

"A person choosing to use this phrase thus is not only alluding to this shared ideology and identity, he/she is at the same time constructing that identity by means of expressing it," says Anna Marie Trester of New York University. "Language is a very important tool of self-construction."
See these lines as fusions of cultural richness, transitions rather than barriers
This offers us a new way of looking at national pride. It doesn't have to mean seeing "your people" as better than other nations', nor does it mean a centralisation of meaning and power. Instead, it can involve the devolution of traditions and an appreciation of regionality and of the enormous cultural value of new citizens. The European Union is an example of supranational identity that allows citizens to feel they are European and identify with the values of the EU, but without having to give up their national identity.

A similar idea can apply within nations as well as between them. In the UK, for instance, London's Chinatown is rightly a much-visited tourist destination, as is Little India – they are part of the nation's identity, even though Chinese Brits and British Indians often face prejudice and socioeconomic disadvantage.

To earn national pride rather than suffer divisive tribalism, a nation needs to reduce inequality. The state must invest in the people for the people to feel invested in the state. That means putting social and environmental issues first in ways that are for the benefit of all, rather than a small tribe of global aristocrats. The Green New Deals proposed in the European Union and the US are examples of policies aimed at restoring economies, providing jobs and boosting dignity while helping unite people in a bigger social project of environmental transformation.

Try, if you will, to clear from your mind the idea of people being fixed to a location they were born in, as if it affects your value as a person or your rights as an individual. As if nationality were anything more than an arbitrary line drawn on a map. See instead these lines as fusions of cultural richness, transitions rather than barriers across the possibilities that Earth's lands offer us all.


Ah shit, someone else had a similar but better idea to some sci-fi story I been slowly workshopping. Tho mine was gonna be far future desert-based fictional city that rose from the ground each day to collect solar energy instead. Will have to solomnly read it now. The links to modern UK politics does build a far more compelling pitch.


In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stated that the greatest impact of climate change would be on human migration. A steep rise in the Global Mean Sea Level, or GMSL, will become a dangerous result of anthropogenic climate change. The GMSL is projected to rise between 17 and 29cm by 2050. This extreme change in sea levels will result in coastal flooding and, therefore, a 25% decrease in the area of coastal lands. Along with a dynamic rise in sea level, global warming will lead to drastic climate changes, which will result in extreme temperatures, droughts, and floods. This striking climate change will affect 77% of the cities around the world (Crowther Lab). In the end, making huge stretches of the world uninhabitable. This loss of housing and living resources will result in a steep rise in forced climate migrants. According to the World Bank, if no climate action is taken, the number of forced climate migrants will rise up to 143 million by 2050. That means that “one in every 45 people will have been displaced” due to climate change (International Organization for Migration).

In The Wall, John Lanchester presents a future society that has experienced catastrophic climate change, leaving millions displaced. These forced climate migrants are seen floating endlessly on the sea, outside a concrete barrier, termed by Lanchester as “the Wall” (Lanchester 10). This “concrete monster” is the “National Coastal Defence Structure,” which encircles Britain, securing its citizens from both unwanted water and climate migrants (Lanchester 11, 22). These unwanted and feared climate migrants are termed the “Others” (Lanchester 15).

In order to protect the Wall, from the Others, the young citizens of this frigid fortress state are deployed to guard the Wall for two years. These forced guards are known as “Defenders” (Lanchester 10). If they succeed in guarding the Wall for two years, they are permitted to live the rest of their lives inside the safety of the Wall. Although, if they fail and Others cross the Wall during their watch, they are forced to take the place of the Others and are put to sea. Thus, transforming the fate of these Defenders in an instant, from young citizens to induced migrants.

Although the cause of displacement of the forced climate migrants, or Others, and the induced migrants, or prior Defenders is different, they both share a doomed fate, resting in the unpredictable hands of Nature. The forced climate migrants or Others are displaced due to uninhabitable conditions of their homelands. While induced migrants or prior Defenders have been relocated as planned by the state and agreed upon by the community, as they failed to defend the Wall, and, therefore their lives.

The protagonist of this dystopian fable, Joseph Kavanagh, crosses over from being a citizen to an induced migrant, from a Defender to an Other. Kavanagh, who shares his name with Joseph K. from Franz Kafka’s The Trial, also shares his fate of becoming an outlaw for no defendable reason. He is put to sea for failing in his “duty as a Defender” (Lanchester 124). This induced migration can be seen in the division of the book into three parts. Kavanagh migrates from being a citizen on “The Wall”, which is the first part, to an induced migrant on “The Sea”, which is the third part, with the intermediary stage of identifying himself and understanding “The Others”, in the second part.

Unlike previous usages of the wall as a metaphorical barricade, Lanchester does not use it symbolically but as a practical structure. This is similar to the cold on the Wall, which “isn’t a metaphor” (Lanchester 10). The practicality of the Wall is portrayed through the graphic visualisations of concrete poetry and haiku. The visuals move from the shape of a tree:

“a

poem

about a

tree in the

shape of a tree,

in this case a Christ-

mas tree, not a very con-

vincing tree and not a very good

poem but it’s not trying to be a death-

less masterpiece it’s just to show the idea

yes?”

to a block of concrete:

“concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete

concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete

concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete

concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete

concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete

concrete concrete concrete concrete concrete”

and then to a haiku:

“sky!

cold

water

concrete

wind”​

(Lanchester 17, 18, 19)

This change in shapes captures the Change that has occurred after a catastrophic climatic event that has left the world consisting of “concretewaterskywindcold” (Lanchester 18). It is this lack of spacing that represents the looming Wall, dividing the citizens and forcing climate migrants.

This change in shapes captures the Change that has occurred after a catastrophic climatic event that has left the world consisting of “concretewaterskywindcold” (Lanchester 18). It is this lack of spacing that represents the looming Wall, dividing the citizens and forcing climate migrants.

Lanchester’s Wall also has a stark resemblance to the Wall of Westeros of George R. R. Martin’s Game of Thrones. They both keep out unwanted migrants. Although, unlike the Wall of Westeros, Lanchester’s Wall is not magical but a massive concrete barricade. Whereas those attempting to cross the Wall are not white walkers who are “inhuman beings with mystic powers” or wights who are “dead people” turned into “zombies” but actual human beings (Renfro). In stark contrast to the white walkers, these forced climate migrants are “black-clad” figures hoping to “hopping silently over the Wall, knife in its hand, murder in its eyes, nothing to lose” (Lanchester 34). Therefore, it can be said that Lanchester, a self-proclaimed Game of Thrones addict, takes a realistic but inspired approach to the Westeros legend.

This fantasy turned reality does not hit Kavanagh until he is forced to experience the first turn of violence, when Mary, the cook of their squad, is shot while serving coffee to Kavanagh. This shocking turn to violence leaves Kavanagh in a phase of confusion and denial. Originally, Kavanagh is presented as a person who has blinkers on and has numbed himself to a life without perspective. It is this violent shot that forces him to understand the desperate hope of the forced climate migrants on the other side of the Wall.

The Others who are successful in making the breach are “always caught and offered the standard choice.” They have to choose between “being euthanised, becoming Help or being put back to see” (Lanchester 40). This choice provided to forced climate migrants is similar to that offered to war captives. In order to survive, these migrants choose to become Help, which is a form of state-sanctioned slavery. They make this choice as it has the “attraction” that if they have children, “the children are raised as citizens,” which resembles the current British Citizenship by Birth law for immigrant parents (Immigration Advice Service). This powerlessness over their identity is similar to the Pearls or immigrants of Gilead in Margaret Atwood’s The Testaments. While Lanchester’s climate migrants are offered to choose their identity, Atwood’s Pearls are “observed carefully” and “assigned” their identities as “potential Wives or Econowives, or Supplicants, or, in some unhappy cases, Handmaids” (Atwood ch. 47). This limitation of choices provided to the migrants puts them in a tight spot. Thus, although they have entered a climatic safe space inside the Wall, they have not become liberated. Prior to setting foot inside the Wall, they were in the open, and their lives toed between their free will and the forces of Nature. Whereas, after their successful escapade from Nature, they are now shackled by the state. Thus, the Wall confines them rather than rescues them.

The Help, as presented in The Wall is considered by Kavanagh as a “life upgrade,” a “status symbol” which makes life both easier and “nicer.” Kavanagh wants to become “rich enough” that he can afford Help so that he has “somebody else to do the boring and difficult bits” for him (Lanchester 62). Apart from domestic chores, these difficult bits include the time spent guarding the Wall, which the “rich and powerful people” are suspected of being exempted from by rigging their IDs and sending their Help instead of going themselves (Lanchester 83).

As opposed to Kavanagh’s wish of having Help, Hifa’s mother, a retired art teacher who already has Help realises that having another “human being at one’s beck and call” is a “lessening of one own’s humanity”. Although she is later seen justifying this act of slavery as “a form of providing welfare and shelter and refuge to the wretched of the world”. She further argues that she would never have succumbed to this decline of humanity in earlier times before the Change had occurred. Nonetheless, she defends her mannerism of a do-gooder as a reason for the “terribleness of age”. She reasons that although the “spirit is willing”, the “flesh is weak, and if we’re being completely honest, the spirit isn’t always willing either” (Lanchester 107). Therefore, it can be argued that irrespective of the Change, having Help, a pretentious term used for slavery, is a falling of humanity, a decline of civilisation, for which no argument can be regarded as reasonable and just.

The Others who cross the Wall tend to become Breeders, a term given to those who reproduce. The citizens, on the other hand, “don’t want to Breed, because the world is such a horrible place”. The rule is that if “you reproduce, you can leave” the Wall, so Defenders use breeding as an incentive to save their own lives (Lanchester 31). Thus, in order to live, they should create life. This is reflective of Kazuo Ishiguro’s take on mortality and hope in his dystopian novel, Never Let Me Go, where the existence of the clones, Tommy, Ruth, and Kathy, is to donate to create life. The purpose of the clones is parallel to that of the Others who have entered the Wall, as selfless providers for the rich and the powerful. Thus, the act of providing refuge to these forced climate migrants is a sham, in order to justify the state’s exploitation of the climate migrants as Help and Breeders.

This realist story of a Kafkaesque character leaves the future of forced climate migrants at an uncertain but hopeful edge. Similar to Kafka’s endings, The Wall ends in the confused state of settled in displacement, as Kavanagh and his partner, Hifa, find “some sort of installation” in the middle of the unsettling sea (Lanchester 172). Although, unlike Kafka, Lanchester adds a flicker of hope for survival in the literal sense of the flicker of a flame from a lamp. Therefore, providing light and warmth to the fear of uncertainty by stating, “Everything is going to be alright” (Lanchester 189).
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,389
6,914
118
Country
United States
So you are smarter than these doctors and researchers? How don't you guys get this yet, you're not arguing with me but these experts and doctors and I'm just repeating their findings and messages. Show me a single actual cost-benefit analysis showing lockdowns and restrictions provided more benefits than harms, I still haven't seen a single one that says that.

Obviously, the travel restrictions didn't work since the virus made it's way to every continent. There's just so much travel now that unless we got really lucky and stopped the virus in Wuhan, it was making it's way across the globe because it was airborne and transmissible prior to symptoms. You're acting like these aren't the facts when they very much obviously are the facts.
*Posts study showing a very conservative estimate of reducing mortality by 10%* Hell, it says mask mandates reduced mortality rates by 18%. It frames this as a bad *draconian* policy, which is a hilarious bit of editorializing for something you want me to take seriously

I reject your follow-up argument about "cost-benefit analysis" by not giving a shit about stock prices
 
Last edited:

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,797
3,641
118
The likeliest scenario based on present day western political power is vast "passive" genocide by nations more interested in arming their borders than curving anthropomorphic climate change. It will get very fucking ugly. And I don't think most people are prepared to comprehend or approach such horror. If you're seeing increases in militarisation of not only borders, but also climate protests, it is indeed time to start growing quite concerned. Though instead of giving in to despair (which I understand only too well), seek like minded communities, solidarity with movements who have plans and political goals invested directly in avoiding this future. None of them are going to be perfect, humans are inherently messy creatures, however our numbers are our greatest bargaining tool.
About a hundred years ago, anthropomorphic climate change in the form of the Dustbowl hit the US, and even people from the same country wanted the Okies (et al) to go off and die somewhere else. In more recent years, people fleeing Hurricane Katrina were met with roadblocks because people didn't want them in their towns.

Rather annoyingly, none of this is remotely necessary, but it will happen on a massive scale and future generations, should civilisation persist, will wonder why people were so cruel and foolish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XsjadoBlayde

Absent

And twice is the only way to live.
Jan 25, 2023
1,594
1,554
118
Country
Switzerland
Gender
The boring one
This whole mess is utterly depressing.
We have known for nearly 30 years what the issues are.

At first it was "Let's just wait for better science to be sure before committing to anything".
Then "Seems like we really should do something. But it is not urgent, so let's put our energy to urgent problems first".
Then "Ok, we really need to do something. Let's agree where we want to end up. And then let's just assume that we will get there and leave the details for later".
Then "Sure, maybe we should start doing something if we ever want to get to what was agreed on. But let's take it slowly so people get used to it and to the more drastic changes as late as possible"
Then "Oh, seems like we won't make it. Oh, well, the targets were not realistic in the first place, maybe we should just change them to what we know what we will achieve"

And that is without the actual climate change deniers who are another category of horrible.

Honorable mention to all the governments making promises but planning any difficult measures for future election cycles.
This thread alone illustrates how deeply we're fucked. And how the profiteering denialists have won.

Between "there is no scientific consensus" and "what's the big deal I haven't been noticing anything anyway", our societies are still at de santis level and won't evolve beyond that.
 

Elijin

Elite Muppet
Legacy
Feb 15, 2009
2,070
1,040
118
Just popping in from a place that actually did things right for the whole period.

Lockdowns, travel restrictions, masks and hygiene worked. We experienced about 6 weeks worth of covid lockdowns over the several years, because we did it right.

The problem for most places isn't a question of what worked, it's a question of how often it was ignored, undermining the point. Those solutions only work if embraced wholly by the community, without exceptions.

I now await being told my lived experience is wrong, by some dipshit.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,574
2,207
118

Hawki

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 4, 2014
9,651
2,173
118
Country
Australia
Gender
Male

An example of what I mean by tradeoffs. The best milks for you in terms of health are the worst milks for the planet. :(
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,389
6,914
118
Country
United States
They can pry my state constitution from my cold, dead hands, I love this
 
  • Like
Reactions: Satinavian

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland

An example of what I mean by tradeoffs. The best milks for you in terms of health are the worst milks for the planet. :(
Kind of a mixed bag no? Almond milk is one of the worst and it is shit for the environment. Soy is the closest thing to regular dairy and is more environmentally friendly. And that 8/10 seems to be based on two possibilities. The first is added oil which I seriously wouldn't worry about unless you're absolutely guzzling the stuff. And second that it's fortified with essential vitamins which is no different than just supplementing with multivitamins. The amount of fitness influencers I see criticising fortified foods while offering a discount code for Athletic Greens is downright painful to witness.

Seems that the best answer is soy. I know somebody is going to chime in with "soy is bad for you" "estrogen" or some other nonsense so I'll just preemptively say they're wrong and I'm not arsed sharing a bunch of sources that will just be ignored. So that's the beginning and end of that conversation.

Oddly enough, as a strength coach and a barista, milk is an area I have a frankly silly amount of reading done on.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,619
1,242
118
Country
United States
Which was likely their scheme all along. Delay and obstruct measures to tackle climate change long enough for it to become impossible.
Nah. Delay and obstruct until palliation and reparation becomes wildly profitable, and weaponizable against the populace to seize even more power. As in the whole cyberpunk "arcologies/megacities with legal slave populations" shtick.

Until then, or worst case scenario comes, there's a reason the ultra-wealthy are (and have been) investing big on doomsday bunkers, mega-yachts and support fleets capable of complete autonomy, private militaries, automation, and the like. Forget Elon and his stupid Mars bullshit, watch who's buying decommissioned ICBM launch facilities and continuity-of-government bunkers and renovating them.

Y'ever notice how the "we have to cut taxes so our children don't drown in debt" crowd seems to be perfectly okay with their children literally drowning in rising seas?
"We have to cut taxes so our children don't drown in debt" is precisely why their children are drowning in debt. Even accounting for the totality of your statement, you're sorely underestimating the degree of sociopathy involved here.

I'm definitely not saying these solutions are easy. But they're definitely available-- climatologists agree and point to them all the time-- and the primary barrier is political will and industry intransigence rather than practicality.
I'ma dip in on this subthread. Let's not keep our eyes off the target -- the overwhelming majority of emissions are a product of late capitalism and corporate greed. 71%/100 companies, and all. "We all have to tighten our belts a little" is the same nonsense that gets pushed every time there's an economic crisis to justify austerity, which never works save to create the next economic bubble. All while the sectors which caused it continue to go unregulated, get bailed out, and have their losses socialized.

Just like with the economic boom-bust cycle, the problem isn't that general populaces would have to tolerate minor, but perceptible, degradation in their quality of life. It's that elites would have to tolerate trivial, imperceptible, degradation in theirs...and they just so happen to perceive fiat to make everyone else's life hell as vital to their quality-of-life. And with that, comes the billions spent monthly in mass media communication to convince the general populace to act against its own interest.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Baffle

Elite Member
Oct 22, 2016
3,471
2,749
118
Kind of a mixed bag no? Almond milk is one of the worst and it is shit for the environment. Soy is the closest thing to regular dairy and is more environmentally friendly. And that 8/10 seems to be based on two possibilities. The first is added oil which I seriously wouldn't worry about unless you're absolutely guzzling the stuff. And second that it's fortified with essential vitamins which is no different than just supplementing with multivitamins. The amount of fitness influencers I see criticising fortified foods while offering a discount code for Athletic Greens is downright painful to witness.

Seems that the best answer is soy. I know somebody is going to chime in with "soy is bad for you" "estrogen" or some other nonsense so I'll just preemptively say they're wrong and I'm not arsed sharing a bunch of sources that will just be ignored. So that's the beginning and end of that conversation.

Oddly enough, as a strength coach and a barista, milk is an area I have a frankly silly amount of reading done on.
I find soy doesn't blend well in hot drinks; it coagulates and is grim, waiting at the bottom of the mug for me. For cereal it's fine.

The soy-based protein shakes are okay but not nice. I find the pea protein etc. disgusting, like drinking plasticine in both taste and texture.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,583
2,293
118
Country
Ireland
I find soy doesn't blend well in hot drinks; it coagulates and is grim, waiting at the bottom of the mug for me. For cereal it's fine.

The soy-based protein shakes are okay but not nice. I find the pea protein etc. disgusting, like drinking plasticine in both taste and texture.
Oh yeah. Soy tastes awful. That's certainly a factor worth considering.

The clear vegan proteins might be nicer. Haven't tried them but the clear whey ones are nice.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,619
1,242
118
Country
United States
And that is without the actual climate change deniers who are another category of horrible.
Let's not forget the third category which has a truly disturbing level of influence, for its level of rationality.

"GAWD said this world's ours to do what we want with, and blowin' it up makes JESUS come back faster to bring us all home! When we're all gone home, it'll be the HEATHENS left to get tribulated! We're doin' GAWD'S WORK makin' sure that tribulamation gets extra bad, so the unrighteous get PUNISHED all more!"

You know, the little brother to "we support Israel to expedite the Biblical apocalypse".
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluegate

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,797
3,641
118
Let's not forget the third category which has a truly disturbing level of influence, for its level of rationality.

"GAWD said this world's ours to do what we want with, and blowin' it up makes JESUS come back faster to bring us all home! When we're all gone home, it'll be the HEATHENS left to get tribulated! We're doin' GAWD'S WORK makin' sure that tribulamation gets extra bad, so the unrighteous get PUNISHED all more!"

You know, the little brother to "we support Israel to expedite the Biblical apocalypse".
There are serious questions about whether Australia's previous Prime Minister believes this, or whether he is just impressively incompetent and malicious.