IPS: New Evidence Confirms Risk That Mideast May Become Uninhabitable

[Virginiá]

http://www.ipsnews.net/2017/03/new-evidence-confirms-risk-that-mideast-may-become-uninhabitable/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Surely this must upset white supremacists. Where do they think all those hundreds of millions of brown people will go? They will migrate to Europe, Northern CIS nations and Eastern Asia. Of course this is mostly an American thing, but supporting politicians who deny climate change is very counterproductive to their cause.

I'm not sure how they can stop this development. Cutting emissions is basically impossible as of now, so their only option would to somehow develop massive amounts of high-tech desalinization plants to feed water into their countries on a scale that is hard to imagine with current capabilities.

[Crumpets]

It's sad that this thread gets relegated to the "off topic board," when it's arguably one of the most important security issues in the world today, and the root cause of so much of the modern world's ills - the constant coups in Egypt, the Syrian, Iraqi, and Yemeni civil wars, the rise of extremism in Afghanistan, all are thanks at least in part to food and resource scarcity brought on by the unique effects of climate change in the region.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If we randomly bomb them some more, will it help?

[dead0man]

Perhaps they could use some of the many Trillions they've made selling oil...what?  they blew it all on Momansions and Mocerdes Benz?  Now it's our problem?  Seems fair.

[Storebought]

Mass migration within, and mass emigration from, the Middle East is not a new phenomenon, but Westerners don't have the same general awareness of it like the mass emigration from Ireland, southern Europe, or Russia. The current Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis seems so overwhelming because, for most people in Europe and the US, the size and scale of the population movement (ok, expulsions) in the Middle East is unprecedented even though by historical standards it isn't.

[Virginiá]

The current Syrian/Iraqi refugee crisis seems so overwhelming because, for most people in Europe and the US, the size and scale of the population movement (ok, expulsions) in the Middle East is unprecedented even though by historical standards it isn't.

If what this article postulates ends up occurring to some degree, it is possible we do end up seeing historic migration. We would then be talking about many tens of millions of people, and that is before you factor in the issues Bangladesh will face with rising sea levels. That country alone is set for probably the biggest humanitarian disaster on record.

[Unapologetic Chinaperson]

Surely this must upset white supremacists. Where do they think all those hundreds of millions of brown people will go? They will migrate to Europe, Northern CIS nations and Eastern Asia. Of course this is mostly an American thing, but supporting politicians who deny climate change is very counterproductive to their cause.

Nah, I think that this will delight white supremacists. They'll point to the millions of refugees entering the West and say "see, the brown people really are taking over." It wouldn't surprise me if the GOP is embracing climate change in order to shore up their xenophobic base.

[dead0man]

A lot of people aren't surprised by dumb things, don't feel bad.

[Oryxslayer]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but when I was in Israel, they seemed to have always had this issue and have prepared accordingly. The culture there heavily discourages water use, incouraging water use at a minimum. Every glass of tap water I drank came from a desalination plant. Perhaps if the Arab nations cpuld actually look at Israel as an example for once...no no this is impossible.

[Famous Mortimer]

Surely this must upset white supremacists. Where do they think all those hundreds of millions of brown people will go? They will migrate to Europe, Northern CIS nations and Eastern Asia. Of course this is mostly an American thing, but supporting politicians who deny climate change is very counterproductive to their cause.

Nah, I think that this will delight white supremacists. They'll point to the millions of refugees entering the West and say "see, the brown people really are taking over." It wouldn't surprise me if the GOP is embracing climate change in order to shore up their xenophobic base.

White nationalists views on the environment tend to be ambivalent to supportive. They aren't really anti-environment because they aren't super pro-capitalist like normie Republicans.

News like this, however, pushes them towards a more mainstream Republican position of just saying global warming is a hoax, an excuse for immigration cooked up by the left.

Establishment conservatives and Republicans, on the other hand, aren't likely to change their views at all, because as smart people should know, they favor mass immigration anyway.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It's sad that this thread gets relegated to the "off topic board," when it's arguably one of the most important security issues in the world today, and the root cause of so much of the modern world's ills - the constant coups in Egypt, the Syrian, Iraqi, and Yemeni civil wars, the rise of extremism in Afghanistan, all are thanks at least in part to food and resource scarcity brought on by the unique effects of climate change in the region.

When the President and his party adopt the position that this isn't happening and neither the media, the opposition, nor the public are willing to point out that they're de facto guilty of slow-motion crimes against humanity, how can we force them, or anyone, to take this seriously?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but when I was in Israel, they seemed to have always had this issue and have prepared accordingly. The culture there heavily discourages water use, incouraging water use at a minimum. Every glass of tap water I drank came from a desalination plant. Perhaps if the Arab nations cpuld actually look at Israel as an example for once...no no this is impossible.

The Gulf countries use a lot of desalinated water, to the extent that the Persian Gulf is becoming ever more expensive to desalinate as it becomes more and more concentrated with salt.

The problem with water pricing is that in semi-democratic (or not at all democratic) countries, the elite are very paranoid about their citizens getting antsy, so they tend to frontload their benefits and present them as spectacular gifts from the paternalist royals.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Perhaps they could use some of the many Trillions they've made selling oil...what?  they blew it all on Momansions and Mocerdes Benz?  Now it's our problem?  Seems fair.

Fair doesn't come into it.

If the Middle East does become uninhabitable, the results will significantly affect us here in the US. The only question is whether we want to have some input onto what those results are, or not.

[Absolution9]

The issue in the short term is not global warming (Egyptian agricultural yield per acre has been rising), its a super high rate of population growth in a region with very little arable land to start with (and politically unstable countries that don't easily invest in the future).  This would be a huge problem even without global warming.

Sub-Saharan Africa is potentially even worse, the population is slated to rise from 800M to 3.2B+ by 2100.  There is more arable land there but a huge chunk of the growth is supposed to be in the Sahel and Horn of Africa regions which are not well irrigated to say the least.

Check out the UN population projections for Niger (not Nigeria!!).  Its predicted to go from roughly 20M to 190M by 2100.  It literally abuts the Sahara and its territory consists of desert and dry prairie.

Europe is going to have to completely close its borders or be swamped in the next 50 years, the migration of the last 2-3 years will be completely dwarfed.

[Mr. Morden]

The issue in the short term is not global warming (Egyptian agricultural yield per acre has been rising), its a super high rate of population growth in a region with very little arable land to start with (and politically unstable countries that don't easily invest in the future).  This would be a huge problem even without global warming.

Sub-Saharan Africa is potentially even worse, the population is slated to rise from 800M to 3.2B+ by 2100.  There is more arable land there but a huge chunk of the growth is supposed to be in the Sahel and Horn of Africa regions which are not well irrigated to say the least.

Check out the UN population projections for Niger (not Nigeria!!).  Its predicted to go from roughly 20M to 190M by 2100.  It literally abuts the Sahara and its territory consists of desert and dry prairie.

Europe is going to have to completely close its borders or be swamped in the next 50 years, the migration of the last 2-3 years will be completely dwarfed.

At some point, isn't the lack of arable land going to prevent those population projections from materializing?  If people become more likely to die before they have kids, then the population isn't going to grow as fast.  (Note, in case anyone takes this the wrong way: I'm not saying this is a good thing.  I'm just trying to logic through what is the most likely scenario.)

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Maybe Russia should give up some of it's millions and millions of miles of mostly empty land for people whose home countries are destroyed. 

[Absolution9]

The issue in the short term is not global warming (Egyptian agricultural yield per acre has been rising), its a super high rate of population growth in a region with very little arable land to start with (and politically unstable countries that don't easily invest in the future).  This would be a huge problem even without global warming.

Sub-Saharan Africa is potentially even worse, the population is slated to rise from 800M to 3.2B+ by 2100.  There is more arable land there but a huge chunk of the growth is supposed to be in the Sahel and Horn of Africa regions which are not well irrigated to say the least.

Check out the UN population projections for Niger (not Nigeria!!).  Its predicted to go from roughly 20M to 190M by 2100.  It literally abuts the Sahara and its territory consists of desert and dry prairie.

Europe is going to have to completely close its borders or be swamped in the next 50 years, the migration of the last 2-3 years will be completely dwarfed.

At some point, isn't the lack of arable land going to prevent those population projections from materializing?  If people become more likely to die before they have kids, then the population isn't going to grow as fast.  (Note, in case anyone takes this the wrong way: I'm not saying this is a good thing.  I'm just trying to logic through what is the most likely scenario.)

Who knows: in the short term most of these countries have natural resources that can be sold for foreign currency (plus there is food aid in times of famine).  Niger already imports 20-25% of its food, on average, per year.  Its going to get much harder to come up with the money as the population quadruples in the next 40 years.  The average woman has about 7.5 children in Niger.

Or take Nigeria, its population is going to rise (based on UN projections) from 190M right now to over 440M by 2050 (then approach 900M by 2100).  So by 2050 its population density will be about 1.5x greater than India today.  Issue is, while Nigeria is a fairly fertile country it is no where near as fertile as India.  Its also evenly divided between Muslims and Christians and is very tribal, a potential civil war/political instability there would be cataclysmic.