Not much need for a wall right now, but I think an unmanageably large volume of climate refugees is something that could reasonably happen in the coming years.
What does? Probably becoming better prepared to accommodate people would be a better solution. But if that isn’t something we’re willing to do, and as a result can’t handle a large sudden population increase without major destabilization, maybe a wall would be useful.
Well no, that assumption isn’t needed, the US being negatively impacted by climate change would make this even harder to deal with (lower crop production, local displacement from coastal cities, etc). But the fact is it’s not at the equator, where the problems will be the worst, where there may be growing regions that can no longer support human life, where this growing pressure has caused wars, and the direction people will be fleeing is away from the equator. In that situation will we really be in a position to address those people’s problems? How many of them before things just break down? 50 million? 300? It’s about viability and survival, not contempt.
Definitely needed, but we’re past the point where we can expect to avoid some level of catastrophic situations and probably need to start planning for them.
Doesn’t seem like many world governments are motivated to even do that. It feels very much like the people in charge are actively avoiding having to think about these issues, letting them play out until it’s too late, by which time it will be someone else’s problem.
Not much need for a wall right now, but I think an unmanageably large volume of climate refugees is something that could reasonably happen in the coming years.
Wall doesn’t solve that.
Killing the rich and ending fossil fuels might.
What does? Probably becoming better prepared to accommodate people would be a better solution. But if that isn’t something we’re willing to do, and as a result can’t handle a large sudden population increase without major destabilization, maybe a wall would be useful.
Sorry, I edited real quick:
Kill the rich and end fossil fuels, immediately
You’re assuming your own country is impervious to climate change. It’s the dirty poors bringing their problems to you, right? How dare they.
Well no, that assumption isn’t needed, the US being negatively impacted by climate change would make this even harder to deal with (lower crop production, local displacement from coastal cities, etc). But the fact is it’s not at the equator, where the problems will be the worst, where there may be growing regions that can no longer support human life, where this growing pressure has caused wars, and the direction people will be fleeing is away from the equator. In that situation will we really be in a position to address those people’s problems? How many of them before things just break down? 50 million? 300? It’s about viability and survival, not contempt.
Seems like a great argument for addressing climate change as a priority.
Definitely needed, but we’re past the point where we can expect to avoid some level of catastrophic situations and probably need to start planning for them.
Doesn’t seem like many world governments are motivated to even do that. It feels very much like the people in charge are actively avoiding having to think about these issues, letting them play out until it’s too late, by which time it will be someone else’s problem.
Maybe it helps that the rich and powerful will be the people least affected.
Cannot fix something if you don’t believe it’s broken