Syrian refugees? Nope - CLIMATE refugees! Oh, give me a break!

[Allen Farlow]

Hope you're sitting down, that way you'll be closer to the floor when you fall on it, laughing your ass off...

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278192-interior-chief-we-will-have-climate-refugees

[alsoknownasDean]

Hope you're sitting down, that way you'll be closer to the floor when you fall on it, laughing your ass off...

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/278192-interior-chief-we-will-have-climate-refugees

Actually, they're on the money, chances are there will be people who are displaced by rising sea levels caused by climate change.

There's a number of Pacific islands (i.e. Tokelau, Kiribati, Tuvalu) that are quite low lying and at risk if sea levels continue to rise.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/audio/201789516/eye-of-the-storm-climate-change-in-the-pacific
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/population-of-tuvalu-kiribati-and-nauru-already-migrating-due-to-effects-of-climate-change/news-story/f90541a7704f43318dd87c4193896846
http://thestandard.org.nz/climate-change-killing-tuvalu-tokelau/
http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/299198/tokelau-calls-on-nz-for-more-help-in-climate-change-fight
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/will-tuvalu-disappear-beneath-the-sea-180940704/?no-ist
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/remote-pacific-islanders-at-risk-216825

It's not just the Pacific islands either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/world/asia/facing-rising-seas-bangladesh-confronts-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?_r=0

[Allen Farlow]

Okay, I don't disagree, but honestly, it's not as if this is an overnight disaster such as a hurricane or an earthquake.

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

I see this as nothing but more of the liberal garbage thinking from an Obama official. First we have the Syrian 'refugees', and now this?

Hundreds of Alaskans may be displaced? They'll be 'refugees'?

Puh-leeze!

[former player]

Okay, I don't disagree, but honestly, it's not as if this is an overnight disaster such as a hurricane or an earthquake.

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

I see this as nothing but more of the liberal garbage thinking from an Obama official. First we have the Syrian 'refugees', and now this?

Hundreds of Alaskans may be displaced? They'll be 'refugees'?

Puh-leeze!

If you are a Pacific Islander whose nation no longer exists you need to find another nation that is willing to provide you with residency rights so that you can stay alive: that's called refugee status, whether it happens quickly or slowly.  Many of them will probably go to New Zealand.

Mostly, of course, environmental problems don't destroy the land entirely but tend to lead to greater levels of poverty, hunger and water shortage, leading to civil unrest and civil war, leading to refugees.   I don't know why you think things in Syria got so bad: the politics there hadn't changed for decades, but one of the things which precipitated the uprising there and subsequent civil war was a worsening economy partly caused by worsening environmental conditions.

As to Alaska, "refugee" can mean either an internal displaced person/refugee (ie moving from an unsafe part of a nation to a safer one) or an international refugee.  So yeah, not so stupid to call people whose land is destroyed by climate change refugees.

[radram]

It is clearly already happening regardless of a man made cause or not. Forget increasing intensity and quantity for a moment. As the earth is more populated, more displacement.

Why can we not see that and begin to make a plan now for what the data shows is an increasing likelihood?  Why is this so funny?  If they are safely removed before the land conditions forced their displacement, are they then not refugees? What, then, are they?

[Fudge102]

Okay, I don't disagree, but honestly, it's not as if this is an overnight disaster such as a hurricane or an earthquake.

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

I see this as nothing but more of the liberal garbage thinking from an Obama official. First we have the Syrian 'refugees', and now this?

Hundreds of Alaskans may be displaced? They'll be 'refugees'?

Puh-leeze!

There's also the side effect of mother nature.  As the climate changes and storms get worse, well that's one you can't plan for.  There will be victims of hurricanes and other intense storms who's lives will be destroyed who will just try to relocate themselves to what they view as a better place since everything else they have is destroyed.

[alsoknownasDean]

Okay, I don't disagree, but honestly, it's not as if this is an overnight disaster such as a hurricane or an earthquake.

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Well, if someone is making 'plans to get the heck off it', that makes them a refugee, doesn't it?

By the way, here's a quote from the second link in my previous post (which I should add is from a News Limited publication):

“Many potential migrants however will not have the means to migrate. In these three island states the average monthly income is about $26 Australian dollars… people told us they didn’t feel that that kind of income would make it possible for them to move if they chose to do so.”

If someone is making $26 Australian (about $20 US) a month, it'll take them a long long time to save for a plane ticket elsewhere, even with a Mustachian savings rate.

[Gone]

Not sure what the joke here is. The impact on human settlements by climate change has been well known for at least two decades. Since the majority of the world lives in poverty, so the places where individuals can just up and leave are highly limited (and most places that can afford a luxury like a middle class are countries wealthy enough to combat the effects of climate change themselves through infrastructure and civic planning, meaning they will not have as many people wanting to leave due to climate change). Increased displacement is only to be expected.

[bwall]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

[Cyaphas]

If every piece of ice melts on the face of earth, which would be highly unlikely, the new mouth of the Mississippi river would be Memphis TN.

I think the next 50 years are going to be interesting to say the least. With more moisture in the air you can expect much larger and more dramatic weather anomalies. The coastal populations will have to pick up and find new places to build and live. Some deserts will become forests and some forests will become swamps.

Financially, buying large lots of land/farm land at certain altitudes could wind up being very lucrative. Stock markets will skyrocket and overall this is going to be great for our economy. We're literally going to have to rebuild 50-60% of our population's dwellings. The type of workers you need to do this are the very type of workers you want spending money.

Current infrastructure, dams, housing, water ways, will most likely not stand up to the severity of the storms and will need to be redone or rebuilt. I expect the amount of vegetation in the world to skyrocket also.

One thing is for sure, it won't be boring!

[lr]

When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower." 

[Yaeger]

Yeah, I'm not buying that climate refugee talk either. It's utter crap. I might buy economic refugees, as their climate is being effected by a barely measurable amount over the last couple of decades. Also, it's highly unlikely that in the 100 years it takes for sea levels to rise 6-12 inches it'll catch us unaware and off-guard.

But as the temp heats up, 1 or 2 degrees in next 100 years, it'll aid in agriculture. Plants thrive on CO2 and higher temps. We need more fossil fuels. We need to stop this climate fear-mongering about overblown man-made impacts to the environment.

[Primm]

When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower."

This. Not everyone has the same economic and social privileges as you (OP). Look up the average income of residents of places like Kiribati. Not that high. And if it were as easy as you suggest, why the refugee problem at all? Why don't people just up and move to the US? Or France? Or any one of a number of countries?

[AliEli]

Allan, you are fortunate if you live such a sheltered life that you can't comprehend this. 

Australia has a conservative government and is talking about this.  Kiribati and Tuvalu are looking like their entire populations will be displaced, and possibly in this generation.  It's challenging for the people living there as their high tides are already inundating islands.  The changing climate is also bringing stronger and more frequent storms, so it's actually quite possible that it could be a freak event that causes a need for sudden evacuations.  Have you read about the number of people in PNG who have died due to the drought they are experiencing?  And do you know about the political situation in many Pacific nations that could create political refugees when under pressure from a changing climate?  Real people, real lives, real trauma, and they are entitled to more than the mockery of a sheltered Yank.

[Metric Mouse]

It is clearly already happening regardless of a man made cause or not. Forget increasing intensity and quantity for a moment. As the earth is more populated, more displacement.

Exactly right. In the past several decades 70 Million people have been displaced due to hydroelectric dam building. The populations of a few small pacific islands and a few block of Miami will be nothing in comparison.

The good thing is, there's plenty of room for all of us.

[GuitarStv]

The good thing is, there's plenty of room for all of us.

Yes, if everyone cooperates there should be no problems.

There's plenty of food to feed every person on the Earth right now.  The good thing is, due to all that food and cooperation nobody ever starves.  Oh, wait. . .

[Allen Farlow]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

[Allen Farlow]

When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Buddy, if traveling across international borders during hard times seems easy to you, it's probably because your passport and entire lifestyle is shockingly subsidized by a government so massive we literally call it a "superpower."

This. Not everyone has the same economic and social privileges as you (OP). Look up the average income of residents of places like Kiribati. Not that high. And if it were as easy as you suggest, why the refugee problem at all? Why don't people just up and move to the US? Or France? Or any one of a number of countries?

[NOPE -- The 'refugee problem' you speak of, if you are referring to the 'Syrian refugees' they are not refugees at all. They are islamic fighters intent upon taking over non-islamic lands. They are 90% young, strong, healthy men, many of who are already veterans of war in the Middle East. People DO just 'up and move' to the U.S. They are coming across the U.S. Southern border - a few have been caught, that's how we know. Islamic prayer rugs and materials in Arabic have been found lying in the dirt. That's fact, I'm  not just saying it. ]

[MOD NOTE:  You can knock off the citation-free bigotry any time you like.  That's a fact, and I am saying it.]

As for social and economic advantages, what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.

[Allen Farlow]

Allan, you are fortunate if you live such a sheltered life that you can't comprehend this. 

Australia has a conservative government and is talking about this.  Kiribati and Tuvalu are looking like their entire populations will be displaced, and possibly in this generation.  It's challenging for the people living there as their high tides are already inundating islands.  The changing climate is also bringing stronger and more frequent storms, so it's actually quite possible that it could be a freak event that causes a need for sudden evacuations.  Have you read about the number of people in PNG who have died due to the drought they are experiencing?  And do you know about the political situation in many Pacific nations that could create political refugees when under pressure from a changing climate?  Real people, real lives, real trauma, and they are entitled to more than the mockery of a sheltered Yank.

I was not mocking those who are living with rising tides and droughts, I was mocking Interior Secretary Jewell for calling them 'climate refugees', on the heel of the 'Syrian refugee' label. Instead of calling the so-called 'Syrians' (which also includes many from other nations than Syria) what they truly are, illegal immigrants, they call them 'refugees'. Everyone is a 'refugee' today. It's ridiculous.

Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.

And since when did personal responsibility for oneself disappear? If people can't read the writing on the wall and make plans for the near future why should the rest of the world be forced to take care of them due to their inaction and lack of foresight?

[davisgang90]

Allan, you are fortunate if you live such a sheltered life that you can't comprehend this. 

Australia has a conservative government and is talking about this.  Kiribati and Tuvalu are looking like their entire populations will be displaced, and possibly in this generation.  It's challenging for the people living there as their high tides are already inundating islands.  The changing climate is also bringing stronger and more frequent storms, so it's actually quite possible that it could be a freak event that causes a need for sudden evacuations.  Have you read about the number of people in PNG who have died due to the drought they are experiencing?  And do you know about the political situation in many Pacific nations that could create political refugees when under pressure from a changing climate?  Real people, real lives, real trauma, and they are entitled to more than the mockery of a sheltered Yank.

I was not mocking those who are living with rising tides and droughts, I was mocking Interior Secretary Jewell for calling them 'climate refugees', on the heel of the 'Syrian refugee' label. Instead of calling the so-called 'Syrians' (which also includes many from other nations than Syria) what they truly are, illegal immigrants, they call them 'refugees'. Everyone is a 'refugee' today. It's ridiculous.

Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.

And since when did personal responsibility for oneself disappear? If people can't read the writing on the wall and make plans for the near future why should the rest of the world be forced to take care of them due to their inaction and lack of foresight?

Chemtrails LOL. 

[nereo]

The 'refugee problem' you speak of, if you are referring to the 'Syrian refugees' they are not refugees at all. They are islamic fighters intent upon taking over non-islamic lands. They are 90% young, strong, healthy men, many of who are already veterans of war in the Middle East. People DO just 'up and move' to the U.S. They are coming across the U.S. Southern border - a few have been caught, that's how we know. Islamic prayer rugs and materials in Arabic have been found lying in the dirt. That's fact, I'm  not just saying it.

As for social and economic advantages [from being born a US citizen], what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.

Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.

(no text)

[bwall]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

So your solution is for everyone to break the law?

I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.

[AlanStache]

...

I was not mocking those who are living with rising tides and droughts, I was mocking Interior Secretary Jewell for calling them 'climate refugees', on the heel of the 'Syrian refugee' label. Instead of calling the so-called 'Syrians' (which also includes many from other nations than Syria) what they truly are, illegal immigrants, they call them 'refugees'. Everyone is a 'refugee' today. It's ridiculous.

Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.

And since when did personal responsibility for oneself disappear? If people can't read the writing on the wall and make plans for the near future why should the rest of the world be forced to take care of them due to their inaction and lack of foresight?

AlanF: chemtrails-really?  I was willing to entertain your ideas and ask for links-etc but, no, not after chemtrails and the assertion that they can be used to create droughts.  And I thought chemtrails were for mind control not weather control.

[Metric Mouse]

And I thought chemtrails were for mind control not weather control.

That's what they want you to think.... :D

[Allen Farlow]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

So your solution is for everyone to break the law?

I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

[nereo]

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

I cannot reconcile how this statement jives with what you said earlier:

I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.

This suggests that you think people should be able to leave their country as they please and (by extension) that they should be allowed into other countries.

[Inaya]

If every piece of ice melts on the face of earth, which would be highly unlikely, the new mouth of the Mississippi river would be Memphis TN.

I think the next 50 years are going to be interesting to say the least. With more moisture in the air you can expect much larger and more dramatic weather anomalies. The coastal populations will have to pick up and find new places to build and live. Some deserts will become forests and some forests will become swamps.

Financially, buying large lots of land/farm land at certain altitudes could wind up being very lucrative. Stock markets will skyrocket and overall this is going to be great for our economy. We're literally going to have to rebuild 50-60% of our population's dwellings. The type of workers you need to do this are the very type of workers you want spending money.

Current infrastructure, dams, housing, water ways, will most likely not stand up to the severity of the storms and will need to be redone or rebuilt. I expect the amount of vegetation in the world to skyrocket also.

One thing is for sure, it won't be boring!

Small clarification here. Wet areas will get wetter, while dry areas will get drier. That's (partially) why California and the rest of the southwest U.S. is in such dire straits right now. Also (partially) why the Sahara Desert is getting larger. Obviously it's complicated because you have local and global factors in play, but the general trend is for extremes to get... extremier. Weather (be it rain, snow, wind, etc.) is also largely driven by heat, which is why storm activity is expected to increase on a global scale.

[Kris]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

So your solution is for everyone to break the law?

I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html

[bwall]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

So your solution is for everyone to break the law?

I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.

Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

The first statement says that you do not need governments help, the second acknowledges that if no foreign government is willing to grant you residence (aka 'help'), you would not leave the island.

Please help me understand how the two statements above (see bold type) are not in contradiction to each other.

[PKFFW]

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

It never ceases to amaze me that there is always a story of extreme poverty, living on the streets, eating dirt and minutes from starvation behind every comfortably middle class person anonymously posting on the internet about how those refugees/poor people/bludgers/whatever should just pull themselves up by the boot straps with no help from anyone and if they are not willing to do that then that is their problem.

[nereo]

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

It never ceases to amaze me that there is always a story of extreme poverty, living on the streets, eating dirt and minutes from starvation behind every comfortably middle class person anonymously posting on the internet about how those refugees/poor people/bludgers/whatever should just pull themselves up by the boot straps with no help from anyone and if they are not willing to do that then that is their problem.

Adding:  If somehow I could choose which country I was dirt poor and living in extreme poverty in, I'd probably go with Denmark or Canada, but the United States wouldn't be far behind. EVen when you have nothing in these developed nations you still reap benefits.  I would definitely not choose Syria or Libya or North Korea. 

[Primm]

The 'refugee problem' you speak of, if you are referring to the 'Syrian refugees' they are not refugees at all. They are islamic fighters intent upon taking over non-islamic lands. They are 90% young, strong, healthy men, many of who are already veterans of war in the Middle East. People DO just 'up and move' to the U.S. They are coming across the U.S. Southern border - a few have been caught, that's how we know. Islamic prayer rugs and materials in Arabic have been found lying in the dirt. That's fact, I'm  not just saying it.

As for social and economic advantages [from being born a US citizen], what are those? Sorry but I certainly haven't seen them. I bust my butt for every penny I earn and the feds try to take nearly half of it! I didn't choose to be born in the United States, just as no one chooses to be born in Kiribati, but I assure you if I were born in an abjectly poor area and had no other alternative but my own two feet I'd be out of there. The government thinks they own me but I am a free man and do not need their permission to leave.

Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.

(no text)

Does anyone know if there's a way to stop getting notifications about a post you've already posted on? Aside from turning off the notifications on the top right, I mean. It still shows up in my "new replies to your posts" feed.

Serious question.

[Allen Farlow]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

So your solution is for everyone to break the law?

I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html

Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.

Or open a scuba diving business.

[Kris]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

So your solution is for everyone to break the law?

I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html

Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.

Or open a scuba diving business.

TIL that there are people who don't understand you can't just choose to move to another nation unless they are willing to allow you in.

AKA: TIL there are people who do not understand what the word "refugee" means.

[Yaeger]

I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html

They would be disappearing anyways due to inherent ongoing global climate change independent of any man-made impact. I think it's idiotic to live near the coast at sea level for any significant period of time and NOT plan for this, but to each their own. Also, the majority of the 'refugees' flooding into Europe are economic migrants from North Africa (http://nos.nl/artikel/2082786-timmermans-meer-dan-helft-vluchtelingen-heeft-economisch-motief.html). People usually lump them together, but they're vastly different. They move towards the 'better off' countries deeper into Europe (Germany, Denmark, UK, Sweden), trekking long miles not to escape from war, but moving towards the countries with the greater social benefits.



BTW, I think it's irresponsible to propose legislation and regulation regarding cutting back fossil fuel energy without adequate means of generating cheap alternative power. Fossil fuels remain the most cost efficient method and an attempt to lower our usage will just push more Americans into poverty (and death) and accomplish nothing as foreign interests pick up the demand from America's lost productivity.

[Fudge102]

BTW, I think it's irresponsible to propose legislation and regulation regarding cutting back fossil fuel energy without adequate means of generating cheap alternative power. Fossil fuels remain the most cost efficient method and an attempt to lower our usage will just push more Americans into poverty (and death) and accomplish nothing as foreign interests pick up the demand from America's lost productivity.

Took me a while to understand that graph, aka the last thousand years are the very tiny span on the right and why the majority of the graph was under that line.  That being said, except for one small portion about 110,000 years ago, the "modern era" looks nothing like the rest of the graph.  Also, a vast plethora of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening.  Without sounding dismissive, but do you have a degree related to the science of climate?  So many people look at their opinion as fact when they know nothing more than the propaganda they want to hear.

And that being said, I personally feel it to be more irresponsible to see a potential cataclysmic event and do nothing.  Worst case, we die.  If act on climate change and eliminate fossil fuel, maybe it's a hoax, but the clean air provided fixes a whole lot of other issues.  There are at least benefits to it.  Doing nothing keeps us on a potential catastrophe and holds in place countless medical issues.  We can at least get rid of one by encouraging clean energy.  Maybe it's because I've lived in SoCal for far too long now but I've seen the central valley and LA.  I'm sorry but I would do whatever I could to change the air and get it clean again.

To your point regarding foreign powers, if America says we will do nothing, do you expect any of them to lead the way?  We may not be the largest producer (or at least getting there) but we've lead the way for years.  If we as a country choose to ignore this problem, why should they do any better?  To be a leader, one actually has to lead.  We have to show others that it can be done and how it can be done.  It takes risks and it takes guts.  If one of the largest countries out there says ah fuck it, what incentive do the others have to even try?  That would be irresponsible.

[Yaeger]

BTW, I think it's irresponsible to propose legislation and regulation regarding cutting back fossil fuel energy without adequate means of generating cheap alternative power. Fossil fuels remain the most cost efficient method and an attempt to lower our usage will just push more Americans into poverty (and death) and accomplish nothing as foreign interests pick up the demand from America's lost productivity.

Took me a while to understand that graph, aka the last thousand years are the very tiny span on the right and why the majority of the graph was under that line.  That being said, except for one small portion about 110,000 years ago, the "modern era" looks nothing like the rest of the graph.  Also, a vast plethora of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening.  Without sounding dismissive, but do you have a degree related to the science of climate?  So many people look at their opinion as fact when they know nothing more than the propaganda they want to hear.

And that being said, I personally feel it to be more irresponsible to see a potential cataclysmic event and do nothing.  Worst case, we die.  If act on climate change and eliminate fossil fuel, maybe it's a hoax, but the clean air provided fixes a whole lot of other issues.  There are at least benefits to it.  Doing nothing keeps us on a potential catastrophe and holds in place countless medical issues.  We can at least get rid of one by encouraging clean energy.  Maybe it's because I've lived in SoCal for far too long now but I've seen the central valley and LA.  I'm sorry but I would do whatever I could to change the air and get it clean again.

To your point regarding foreign powers, if America says we will do nothing, do you expect any of them to lead the way?  We may not be the largest producer (or at least getting there) but we've lead the way for years.  If we as a country choose to ignore this problem, why should they do any better?  To be a leader, one actually has to lead.  We have to show others that it can be done and how it can be done.  It takes risks and it takes guts.  If one of the largest countries out there says ah fuck it, what incentive do the others have to even try?  That would be irresponsible.

You ARE dismissive, questioning the validity of my opinion and then offering up an opinion with no supporting evidence or claim to being a climate scientist. Climate change is happening, it's been happening through all of earth's history. What the evidence doesn't show is why the earth has naturally cooled in our past in a cycle like clockwork. I don't understand when you say the modern era looks nothing like that graph, how so?

Just for giggles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#Scientists_arguing_that_global_warming_is_primarily_caused_by_natural_processes
https://youtu.be/OwqIy8Ikv-c <-- decent video (MIT atmospheric science professor, thought it did a pretty good job of portraying 3rd party alarmism)

People like you are hypocrites. You SAY that you'll do everything you can to reduce pollution and obtain cleaner air, but I doubt you're half as willing to consign huge swathes of the population to crushing poverty, starvation, and death. Cheap energy UNDERLIES everything we do. Medical, agriculture, communications, transportation, etc. EVERYTHING you enjoy from an advanced society is dependent on affordable energy. We can talk about nuclear power, which runs a cheaper KW/hr than fossil fuels, but realistically even if we could build enough nuclear plants it would take decades to achieve. Renewable sources aren't even close to the capacity needed or at a low enough cost to provide scale-able cheap power.

Encourage the use of fossil fuels to provide cheap energy. Promote the capitalist process of innovation and technology improvements that develop better, more efficient energy solutions and companies will naturally shift to them. Your irrational fear will only result in negative consequences for the economy and the people, and 'leading' a change with no efficient alternatives will be incredibly destructive. A wealthier society is better able to combat man-made impacts, don't consign people to poverty by forcing a 'solution' that doesn't work.

[AliEli]

Allan, you are fortunate if you live such a sheltered life that you can't comprehend this. 

Australia has a conservative government and is talking about this.  Kiribati and Tuvalu are looking like their entire populations will be displaced, and possibly in this generation.  It's challenging for the people living there as their high tides are already inundating islands.  The changing climate is also bringing stronger and more frequent storms, so it's actually quite possible that it could be a freak event that causes a need for sudden evacuations.  Have you read about the number of people in PNG who have died due to the drought they are experiencing?  And do you know about the political situation in many Pacific nations that could create political refugees when under pressure from a changing climate?  Real people, real lives, real trauma, and they are entitled to more than the mockery of a sheltered Yank.

I was not mocking those who are living with rising tides and droughts, I was mocking Interior Secretary Jewell for calling them 'climate refugees', on the heel of the 'Syrian refugee' label. Instead of calling the so-called 'Syrians' (which also includes many from other nations than Syria) what they truly are, illegal immigrants, they call them 'refugees'. Everyone is a 'refugee' today. It's ridiculous.

Drought is natural but it can also be created by man, via chemtrails, to shift populations from certain areas.

And since when did personal responsibility for oneself disappear? If people can't read the writing on the wall and make plans for the near future why should the rest of the world be forced to take care of them due to their inaction and lack of foresight?

Reufee = a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.

So yeah, Syrians and Pacific Islanders can both be refugees for different reasons Allan.

PNG's drought is not "human designed".  Do you actually believe that there are sociopaths controlling the weather to create havoc?

Are you suggesting that you'd like to see a mass migration of highly motivated Pacific Islanders to your location?  Get a change.org petition going to get that idea going...  A lot of people are going to need to move to higher ground.

It's interesting that there is a debate about "personal responsibility" when it comes to poor people having to move.  How about your "personal responsibility" to not contribute further CO2 emissions?

[GuitarStv]

Careful.  There are a lot of people on this forum who don't like to think about the massive subsidies that some people in the world end up paying for their ability to drive around all the time.  Ironically, they are often the ones most critical of other's 'personal responsibility'.

[nereo]

Careful.  There are a lot of people on this forum who don't like to think about the massive subsidies that some people in the world end up paying for their ability to drive around all the time.  Ironically, they are often the ones most critical of other's 'personal responsibility'.

Massive (~$130B/yr) public spending on roads and bridges so that people can drive their cars = good!
Massive (~$58B/yr) public spending on public transit systems so that people can ride trains, buses etc = bad!

[AlanStache]

From what I have seen lately I have to conclude that solar is basically a viable power source.  It may not be best in all cases but it has moved from an "also ran" to "contender".  If someone can provide a credible counter to this please by all means, give me a link.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/

nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit. 

[Allen Farlow]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

So your solution is for everyone to break the law?

I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html

Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.

Or open a scuba diving business.

TIL that there are people who don't understand you can't just choose to move to another nation unless they are willing to allow you in.

AKA: TIL there are people who do not understand what the word "refugee" means.

Tell that to those so-called 'Syrian refugees'...

[matchewed]

I shouldn't be but I'm continuously amazed at people's lack of compassion on these boards lately. This cavalier attitude and judgements towards others whose positions certain individuals don't understand is sad to see.

Just because you don't understand what they're going through or all their options doesn't mean you have some easy solution in hand nor that they aren't going through hardship.

TLDR get your head out of the sand and follow some old advice about having anything nice to say.

[deadlymonkey]

Exactly how are these people 'refugees' who need 'taking care of'? Even the Pacific Islanders. When your island is 'sinking' you make plans to get the heck off of it! And you don't need a government's help to do that.

Actually, you do need a government's help if you want to leave the island and go to another one. You can't just invite yourself to live in another country that you are not a citizen of. You have to be invited by that government in some form or fashion. This means that they have to grant you residence status.

Yes, and I'm sure every single 'Syrian refugee' sought permission before they walked into Italy, Greece, Germany. The United States doesn't have any illegal immigrants walking across the Southern border, either, right?

So your solution is for everyone to break the law?

I bet you don't take too kindly to haven our laws broken by illegal immigrants, but we see THAT IF YOU WERE IN THEIR SHOES YOU'D DO THE EXACT SAME THING THEY ARE DOING.

Obviously, you don't know me. I wouldn't run from my troubles. I would stay and fight it out and make something of the little I have, so that I will have more tomorrow. Taking the easy way out isn't the best choice. I'm the guy who was once homeless, literally sleeping in the dirt in the trees between the freeways and scrounging for bottles and cans to turn in for that nickle bottles deposit just to have enough money to afford to wash my clothing and get a haircut so I didn't look like I was homeless. (And even then I never panhandled or robbed anyone.) I pulled myself out of homelessness and started my own business and have plenty of money to live on - which I readily give to homeless people when asked. If immigrants want the benefits of the club they should join the club. Emigrate according to the laws set up, not just start jumping fences and thumbing their noses at their fellow countrymen who are trying to do it the right way.

I'm curious as to how you would stay and fight if you lived in the Marshall Islands and they were literally under water.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/02/world/The-Marshall-Islands-Are-Disappearing.html

Oh, well now you're just being silly. If the island is that close to being under water why are they still there? It's not like it happened without any warning. Get a boat and started paddling.

Or open a scuba diving business.

TIL that there are people who don't understand you can't just choose to move to another nation unless they are willing to allow you in.

AKA: TIL there are people who do not understand what the word "refugee" means.

Tell that to those so-called 'Syrian refugees'...

I'm detecting a complete and total lack of empathy.  If your home was being destroyed by forces that you could not control, you would try to move to a place where hopefully your family and children could have a better life (or live at all for that matter).  Refugee problems are serious and we should not just open the doors to everyone, but there needs to be some considerations made and attempts to help resolve the source of the problem.

[nereo]

nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.

That was exactly my intention.  I was building on what GuitarStv had said upthread. We have a segment of our society that is very vocal against spending on public transit but is openly supports spending on our roads and bridges. We spend more on building and maintaining public roads than anything else in the discretionary budget. What's missing from the dialog is any discussion on the relative levels of utilization.

[AlanStache]

nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.

That was exactly my intention.  I was building on what GuitarStv had said upthread. We have a segment of our society that is very vocal against spending on public transit but is openly supports spending on our roads and bridges. We spend more on building and maintaining public roads than anything else in the discretionary budget. What's missing from the dialog is any discussion on the relative levels of utilization.

Copy that, I did not read your post in the right frame of mind.

[Yaeger]

From what I have seen lately I have to conclude that solar is basically a viable power source.  It may not be best in all cases but it has moved from an "also ran" to "contender".  If someone can provide a credible counter to this please by all means, give me a link.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/

nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.

Little to no real information in that article. Things that underlie that argument: India likely pays more for fossil fuels than the US, India is closer to the equator and better able to effectively use solar compared to the US, and India has a lower per capita usage of electricity which makes it easier to supply with solar.

Here's the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States

By all means we should continue to develop newer, better, more efficient and capable technology. Regardless, it's not available now, or likely to be, so unless we go nuclear it's unlikely that we'll beat a reliance on fossil fuels in the next 20-30 years.

[Metric Mouse]

From what I have seen lately I have to conclude that solar is basically a viable power source.  It may not be best in all cases but it has moved from an "also ran" to "contender".  If someone can provide a credible counter to this please by all means, give me a link.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/

nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.

Little to no real information in that article. Things that underlie that argument: India likely pays more for fossil fuels than the US, India is closer to the equator and better able to effectively use solar compared to the US, and India has a lower per capita usage of electricity which makes it easier to supply with solar.

Here's the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States

By all means we should continue to develop newer, better, more efficient and capable technology. Regardless, it's not available now, or likely to be, so unless we go nuclear it's unlikely that we'll beat a reliance on fossil fuels in the next 20-30 years.

Well played. Thank you for the counter points.

[AlanStache]

From what I have seen lately I have to conclude that solar is basically a viable power source.  It may not be best in all cases but it has moved from an "also ran" to "contender".  If someone can provide a credible counter to this please by all means, give me a link.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/07/technology/india-solar-energy-coal/

nereo: Your top line numbers are nearly meaningless without considering the relative levels of utilization, please rerun your analysis and resubmit.

Little to no real information in that article. Things that underlie that argument: India likely pays more for fossil fuels than the US, India is closer to the equator and better able to effectively use solar compared to the US, and India has a lower per capita usage of electricity which makes it easier to supply with solar.

Here's the US:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#United_States

By all means we should continue to develop newer, better, more efficient and capable technology. Regardless, it's not available now, or likely to be, so unless we go nuclear it's unlikely that we'll beat a reliance on fossil fuels in the next 20-30 years.

From the article

...  At a recent government auction, the winning bidder offered to sell electricity generated by a project in sunny Rajasthan for 4.34 rupees (6 cents) per kilowatt hour, roughly the same price as some recent coal projects.

Looks like in the US best case you pay ~50% more than that for traditional home grid connected power.  Hawaii has some of the most expensive power in the US but is at a similar latitude.  But that one sentence says that their coal power is cheaper than ours and their solar is still cheaper.  But yes there are a 1001 details that we may be missing but the larger point is that solar is not some hippy pipe dream.

I would like to read more on your wiki link later tonight. 

Sorry but your list of objections made me think of

FWIW, I am basically in favor of nuclear.  As an engineer I find it painfully stupid that we as a planet have walked away from it. 

[nereo]

FWIW, I am basically in favor of nuclear.  As an engineer I find it painfully stupid that we as a planet have walked away from it.

Honest question:  Do you know how much of the cost of nuclear is simply security (keeping radioactive material away from 'bad people')? It seems like we have to spend orders of magnitude more to protect all aspects of nuclear plants (from generation to disposal) compared to our coal and natural gas fired plants.  But I'm just armchair guessing here...