AlterNet: Climate Destruction Will Produce Millions of 'Envirogees'

[marmar]

Climate Destruction Will Produce Millions of 'Envirogees'

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted May 27, 2008.

The rise of environmental disasters from climate change and destruction of ecosystems will create a surge of refugees across the planet.



Chew on this word, jargon lovers. Envirogee.

It carries more 21st century buzz than its semi-official designation climate refugee, which is a displaced individual who has been forced to migrate because of environmental devastation. Maybe the buzzword will catch on faster and shed some much-needed light on what will become a serious problem, probably by the end of this or the next decade. That light is crucial, because so far envirogees haven't been fully recognized by those who certify the civil liberties of Earth's various populations, whether that is the United Nations or local and national governments whose people are increasingly on the move for a whole new set of devastating reasons.

In short, immigration is about to enter a new phase, which resembles an old one with a 21st century twist. For thousands of years, humanity has fled across Earth's surface fearing instability and in search of sustainability. But that resource war has kicked into overdrive thanks to our current climate crisis -- a manufactured war with its own clock.

And the clock is ticking.

From earthquakes in China to cyclones in Myanmar to water rationing in Los Angeles, societies are shifting like their borders. And all the outcry over so-called illegal immigration neglects to answer one time-honored question: If the borders aren't standing still, why should the people who live in their outlines do so? Especially when they're under attack from catastrophic floods, fires, droughts and any number of other environmental dangers?

Right now, the 1951 Geneva Convention does not recognize the envirogee phenomenon, instead focusing on immigration as a result of political persecution. But then again, it was established over five decades ago when Earth's climate was anything but a terrorist. But the Geneva Convention, like everything that must adapt or die, needs to mutate in time with the rest of the world and its hyperconsuming inhabitants in order to remain relevant in our still-new millennium.

Here are some startling envirogee numbers to crunch: According to the Nobel-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Earth's fracturing communities will have 150 million envirogees by 2050. According to Australian climatologist Dr. Graeme Pearman, coastal flooding resulting from a mere two-degree rise in temperature would kick 100 million people out of their danger-zone homes by 2100.

Here's more scary data. Desertification is claiming land from China to Morocco to Tunisia and beyond at an increasing rate. New Orleans and parts of Alaska are slowly sliding into the sea, while the former, as Hurricane Katrina ably illustrated, is becoming a reliable target for intensifying weather events, human corruption and half-assed infrastructure. Aquifers around the world are shrinking, while acidification is claiming cropland in Egypt and beyond. Hypoxia has claimed portions of the ocean itself with alarming speed, as stretches of the Atlantic and Pacific lose oxygen and, by extension, the marine life that not only feeds millions but establishes the continuity of the food chain.

No food chain, no food. It doesn't get much simpler than that. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/environment/86285/

[Possumpoint]

1. It Bothers Me

When people resort to exaggeration and misdirection to hype their position. Earthquakes are not a new phenomenon. They are a result of an active plate system used by the earth for millions of years. We humans have expanded our populations to the point where people think nothing of living in active earthquake zones. They therefore have to occasionally pay the price. This is compounded by mans tendency to take short cuts on building shelter, especially in third world countries.

New Orleans was a mistake from the start. A city built on unstable land that sinks. That in itself raises the question should it be rebuilt with public money or relocated. Alaska and everyplace else on earth is subject to erosion. Water is a powerful force of nature and wears mountains down to sand. Sand, silt and other debris drift to the low point.

Between 13,000 and 10,000 years ago the Delmarva area of the United states was a wind swept desert. The rest of the northern hemisphere suffered a 10 degree drop in temperature. The causes for this are subject to discussion but man had a tough time surviving and a number of large animals went extinct.

The point I'm trying to make is the earth is a changing environment and man has to adapt. Our population levels in some areas may not be sustainable due to these changes. Now what, shift the population to another area and over populate it? There are no easy answers.