Watts Up With That commenter Janice Moore has it right:
AS IF human CO2 is why Africans flee Africa. As if.
This is in response to a response to an article about an article about the suggestion that climate change will cause people to migrate out of Africa. The former response blamed it on over-population instead. I am a bit disappointed that someone could reject Al Gore but still believe Paul Erlich, but it takes all sorts, I suppose.
Another Janice Moore comment is worth quoting at length (and copying and pasting everywhere):
Wrong.
“If you want enough food,”
then end:
1. the socialist governments’ forcing farmers off their land;
2. the corruption and foolish socialist regulations of the “dictatorship of the elite” (a.k.a. “socialism” – Friedrich Hayek) which prevent the free market from making farm equipment, electricity, and water readily available; and
3. wacko-science anti-GMO food rules which prevent Africans from selling their produce abroad, thus, making African farming unprofitable.
The problem isn’t procreation.
The problem is SOCIALISM and JUNK SCIENCE.
Elsewhere in the discussion, I saw the suggestion that the Sahara might become greener in response to warmer temperatures, which is interesting if true.
So if we abolish all benefits for ‘migrants’, it won’t matter then, as they will come anyway?
I’m glad you agree with me, you uncynical Lefty.
The problem is SOCIALISM and JUNK SCIENCE
Noooooo ! No conjunction required. Socialism is itself junk science.
It was never just huggy egalitarian ethics. Marxism is explicitly a (junk) scientific claim about historical processes, and socialism has never abandoned the idea that it is justified in terms of economic efficiency by cutting out the parasitic capitalist middle men. There’s no mystery about why Marxist social scientists rely on junk science. It’s the whole foundation of their house of cards anyway.
Some countries in Africa, such as Ghana and Botswana seem to be doing OK. Others are complete and utter disasters such as Eritrea and Somalia. Guess which European imperial powers once ran these places ? It’s not a full explanation but sometimes political culture counts.
It doesn’t take an idiot to look at a map of the world, but I did. Rising temperatures would push the agricultural production zone toward the north pole, while also pushing the “too hot to grow stuff” band north and south too.
What is north of the current farmable part of the earth?
EVEN MORE VIRGIN, WELL WATERED LAND.
Of course, that’s Canada and Russia, not the U. S. and Europe. But I’m sure that has nothing at all to do with the desire of the U. S. and Europe to stop it.
(I understand Australia though, GW will screw them up.)
Good post Rob.
staghounds,
Hate to break it to you, but there isn’t a “too hot to grow stuff” band. The hottest bit (the middle) is very green, because stuff grows like crazy there in the rain and sun and lovely warmth. There is a more arid band north and south of this, with less rain, but it is not temprature related – basically stuff doesn’t grow (that much – check out photos of deserts when it does rain) because there is not enough water. And an average two degrees centigrade hotter (which if the records so far can be trusted (I don’t but still) will mostly be at night and in the polar and temparate regions) will not change this picture.
And interestingly these arid zones are for some reason getting less arid. My bet is this is less to do with climate (although it should be noted that much of the Sahara area at least was much more inhabited during previous warm periods) and more to do with people not cutting down all the trees, but that’s just one possibility. Whatever the cause, as alluded to in the original post, at least some semi-desert areas are getting to be better places to grow stuff.
I hate to say this, but where I live, in Florida, we have a lot of climate migrants. From places like New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and even Massachusetts. People fleeing the cold weather and the snow of the far north, seeking warmth and someplace they can live without having to shovel snow.
Like me.
I went to Barbados in early May once, and found that there were lots of Canadians, waiting for last vestiges of winter to be thawed out. Will Climate Change devastate the Caribbean dry season tourist industry?
And how is it that Singapore, within 2 degrees North of the Equator, copes with the infernal equatorial climate? Does anyone seek to go there, despite Climate Change?
To realize that the global warming religion isn’t honest about it’s predictions, all you have to do is notice that of all the dire consequences of GW are negative. You never hear anything about positive fallout, such as more arable land, or decreased heating costs, etc.
Russia is not being flooded with the migrants striving for the “West.”
In Africa we have empirical evidence of the pervasive nature of tribal social orders (with their elites)delaying the enrichment of Kenya and South Africa – once capable “plantation” cultures.
It’s the people, people. It’s the “baggage” they carry with them from a not too distant past; such as when the Bantu migrated into Zulu lands. Migration to take, not make.
One might add, as McCloskey observes, that much is determined by the way in which any peoples look upon one another.
Can I add a fourth bullet?
What about protectionism? With stupidity such as the Common Agriculture Policy pricing African farmers out of the potentially massive European markets surely that is not a good idea.
But then, that’s just bloody stupid socialism again I suppose.
Agreed, Mr Pants.
rxc, you do get those “climate migrants” in Florida, but for many of them it’s only temporary: they find the climate there too oppressive (in the summer, anyway) and so move back up the coast to the middle-Atlantic states. A lot of them roost here, in South Carolina.
We call them “halfbacks”.
I have often taunted lefties who support the CAP with “so basically you hate black people and want them poor and dependent on western aid rather than western trade, yes?”
Unfortunately, you’ve selected a subset of the population that’s immune to logical economic argument. Do they ever try to address the point?
Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa. Now it’s another circle of hell.
No change in climate was required.
More people are migrating because:
1) it’s easier to do so
2) rich welfare benefits are available
3) you’re allowed to stay
Big changes. The change in global temperature? Not so much.
Trump would have been tough on borders, but Cruz did well in the first primaries, so immigrants will know the Free West is weak, and so they will keep coming. We’re all doomed!!!
Unfortunately, you’ve selected a subset of the population that’s immune to logical economic argument. Do they ever try to address the point?
The only argument you can have with lefties has them on the end of a loaded gun.
Even then, to win you have to pull the trigger.
“the Sahara might become greener in response to warmer temperatures”
The interesting point is that as CO2 increases in the atmosphere, plants generally require less water, and it is thought by many that for this reason semi-arid areas have been seen to becoming greener in recent years. A little extra warmth will no doubt also help…
Q. How many Greenies would it take to change a light bulb?
A. The exact number doesn’t matter, as long as they are dry- so be sure to take the piss out of them first!