An expert on Africa, then at Duke University, Stephen Smith, wrote an excellent book, 5-6 years ago titled "The scramble tor Europe" describing how any one in tropical Africa, with a few thousand dollars and a cell phone was fair game for smugglers who would ship them to Europe and the US-Mexican border for these few thousand dollars . The countries they wanted to leave were and still are disfunctional, with about other things, a very high birthrate. That's why so many want to leave. It has nothing to do with climate change, although some of us like to call them climate refugees
I like Roger's articles also, but this one seems to boil down to the advice, "When discussing the prospect of mass migration, include a disclaimer that the concern is not motivated by racism". That seems silly to me.
Scholarship on the management of common pooled resources is of course not per se racist. Agreed. Hardin’s TOTC however was at its core about population control, and specific populations. So that’s the distinction I’d make. 🙏
Although I accept Hardin's racism, it doesn't seem true that the metaphor of "The Tragedy of the Commons" is necessarily racist, too. As I understand it, doesn't the Tragedy explain how policies that protect a shared resource like a plot of land or access to water are influenced or subverted to benefit special interests such as individuals, communities or organizations and states? Don't we see this daily, when farmers advocate for tariffs, or companies lobby against regulations? Isn't this struggle to regulate not always a mutual benefit but frequently self-serving? It seems to me that the Tragedy of the Commons explains much - and in much the same way as the second law of thermodynamics. It's why, in the long run, we are all losers.
Implicit in these arguments is the thought that we can control our world and society. Never mentioned are the consequences of trying to control complex adaptive systems undergoing complicated non-linear phenomena. CASs by their nature are uncontrollable. We may be able to influence them – if we're smart about it. These totalitarians aren't. Case in point - it is becoming ever more apparent that our feeble attempts to control covid actually created a disaster (calls to mind Tacitus on Agricola - "He created a devastation and called it a victory."). We must demand well-worked-through scenarios of possible responses and their consequences on all parts of human society (including doing nothing!) and then minimax our responses to achieve an optimal policy. Too often, our linear responses create more havoc - in unforeseen places - than the problems they are alleged to solve.
are you planning to write a reply that can be reviewed and scrutinised by experts (as this paper did), or are you satisfied with substack subscriptions and congratulatory comments from this audience*?
*Which seems overwhelmingly to be more concerned with perceived "climate alarmism" than with the attributable impacts and well-established risks of climate change.
I generally don't engage with people online because most comments have a 'tell', also there is the I don't get paid enough/at all to argue online. It eats into my free time/responsibilities. so a couple of points and I'll leave it at that
- Everything you stated requires, energy infrastructure and good governance,, unfortunately which is lacking at this moment in time (perfect storm) in many warmer places
- you have to account for demographics/work force/education
- I was just in Mexico and watch construction workers get up early because siesta is mandatory for your health.
- much of farming is still subsistence and requires manual labour
- you need abundant water, tech, energy, labor, money for this to work
Great job calling BS on the fear mongering alarmists and their scare pieces that pass for science and journalism.
These folks, and their work, need to be called out, debunked and discredited.
We simply cannot have a serious discussion on climate policy when clickbait horror show headlines dominate news coverage while simultaneously totally misrepresenting the issues we face.
As there has been no climate change outside historical norms as yet, and in fact all climate change in the past 200 years has been hugely net positive, there are no climate refugees.
There are however a growing number of climate change POLICY refugees which will eventually require crimes against humanity trials to adjudicate.
Erhlich has been saying let those brown people die for decades, to save the worlds resources for us and this year he is still put on TV to spout his evil.
If you took all the Germsns to Nigeria and all the Nigerians to Germany what would happen. Germany would trend to be like Nigeris and Nigeria would trend to be like Germany. But it is not racism as the same would happen between Germany and Russia.
So the niche places are about who lives there not the temperature in a place.
'If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?'
The nuance of this.......There's a lot here for me. If you looked at the world in 1100 or 1500 or 1600. The above is not true. I believe in the tragedy of the commons argument. Take water - we all use the same resource without monitoring its quality, abundance precisely because its always been abundant.
I don't believe in central planning but if no one monitors resources, particularly as they become scarce that's a recipe for collapse. Data, research science should inform good policy.
The intersection of water/arable land/money supply/goods/energy per capita are matters that should be studied.
This is purely anecdotal but I tend think that hotter climates are at a disadvantage not through advance of culture/civilization but through the sheer oppressive nature of heat as opposed to cold.
For me its not a racial argument but a geographical one.
Perhaps I missed the point and feel free to point me in the right direction.
Reading your article was like reading a book of fiction. This is one more example of unelected idiots spreading theories that have no basis in scientific fact but once again who’s counting. You have warned us about these individuals who have hi Jacked climate science to manipulate policies that no one but them want. The troubling thing is that the world press goes along with this garbage. Once again you burden us with the facts but in most cases where powerless to do anything significant about it. This is scary stuff Roger.
An expert on Africa, then at Duke University, Stephen Smith, wrote an excellent book, 5-6 years ago titled "The scramble tor Europe" describing how any one in tropical Africa, with a few thousand dollars and a cell phone was fair game for smugglers who would ship them to Europe and the US-Mexican border for these few thousand dollars . The countries they wanted to leave were and still are disfunctional, with about other things, a very high birthrate. That's why so many want to leave. It has nothing to do with climate change, although some of us like to call them climate refugees
I like Roger's articles also, but this one seems to boil down to the advice, "When discussing the prospect of mass migration, include a disclaimer that the concern is not motivated by racism". That seems silly to me.
Scholarship on the management of common pooled resources is of course not per se racist. Agreed. Hardin’s TOTC however was at its core about population control, and specific populations. So that’s the distinction I’d make. 🙏
Roger,
Although I accept Hardin's racism, it doesn't seem true that the metaphor of "The Tragedy of the Commons" is necessarily racist, too. As I understand it, doesn't the Tragedy explain how policies that protect a shared resource like a plot of land or access to water are influenced or subverted to benefit special interests such as individuals, communities or organizations and states? Don't we see this daily, when farmers advocate for tariffs, or companies lobby against regulations? Isn't this struggle to regulate not always a mutual benefit but frequently self-serving? It seems to me that the Tragedy of the Commons explains much - and in much the same way as the second law of thermodynamics. It's why, in the long run, we are all losers.
Implicit in these arguments is the thought that we can control our world and society. Never mentioned are the consequences of trying to control complex adaptive systems undergoing complicated non-linear phenomena. CASs by their nature are uncontrollable. We may be able to influence them – if we're smart about it. These totalitarians aren't. Case in point - it is becoming ever more apparent that our feeble attempts to control covid actually created a disaster (calls to mind Tacitus on Agricola - "He created a devastation and called it a victory."). We must demand well-worked-through scenarios of possible responses and their consequences on all parts of human society (including doing nothing!) and then minimax our responses to achieve an optimal policy. Too often, our linear responses create more havoc - in unforeseen places - than the problems they are alleged to solve.
Hi Roger,
are you planning to write a reply that can be reviewed and scrutinised by experts (as this paper did), or are you satisfied with substack subscriptions and congratulatory comments from this audience*?
*Which seems overwhelmingly to be more concerned with perceived "climate alarmism" than with the attributable impacts and well-established risks of climate change.
Thank you for your scholarship and wisdom, Roger. Credibility is everything.
I generally don't engage with people online because most comments have a 'tell', also there is the I don't get paid enough/at all to argue online. It eats into my free time/responsibilities. so a couple of points and I'll leave it at that
- Everything you stated requires, energy infrastructure and good governance,, unfortunately which is lacking at this moment in time (perfect storm) in many warmer places
- you have to account for demographics/work force/education
- I was just in Mexico and watch construction workers get up early because siesta is mandatory for your health.
- much of farming is still subsistence and requires manual labour
- you need abundant water, tech, energy, labor, money for this to work
There are so many points to be made
Great job calling BS on the fear mongering alarmists and their scare pieces that pass for science and journalism.
These folks, and their work, need to be called out, debunked and discredited.
We simply cannot have a serious discussion on climate policy when clickbait horror show headlines dominate news coverage while simultaneously totally misrepresenting the issues we face.
As there has been no climate change outside historical norms as yet, and in fact all climate change in the past 200 years has been hugely net positive, there are no climate refugees.
There are however a growing number of climate change POLICY refugees which will eventually require crimes against humanity trials to adjudicate.
Erhlich has been saying let those brown people die for decades, to save the worlds resources for us and this year he is still put on TV to spout his evil.
If you took all the Germsns to Nigeria and all the Nigerians to Germany what would happen. Germany would trend to be like Nigeris and Nigeria would trend to be like Germany. But it is not racism as the same would happen between Germany and Russia.
So the niche places are about who lives there not the temperature in a place.
It really is a superficial idea.
I suppose by the description of rcp8.5 as nonexistent you mean never likely to happen. It does exist in the IPCC reports.
I’m not clear about your point, Roger. Which is it?
1. Mass migration will not be a consequence of climate change, or
2. Mass migration is not a concern unless you’re racist?
'If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?'
The nuance of this.......There's a lot here for me. If you looked at the world in 1100 or 1500 or 1600. The above is not true. I believe in the tragedy of the commons argument. Take water - we all use the same resource without monitoring its quality, abundance precisely because its always been abundant.
I don't believe in central planning but if no one monitors resources, particularly as they become scarce that's a recipe for collapse. Data, research science should inform good policy.
The intersection of water/arable land/money supply/goods/energy per capita are matters that should be studied.
This is purely anecdotal but I tend think that hotter climates are at a disadvantage not through advance of culture/civilization but through the sheer oppressive nature of heat as opposed to cold.
For me its not a racial argument but a geographical one.
Perhaps I missed the point and feel free to point me in the right direction.
Reading your article was like reading a book of fiction. This is one more example of unelected idiots spreading theories that have no basis in scientific fact but once again who’s counting. You have warned us about these individuals who have hi Jacked climate science to manipulate policies that no one but them want. The troubling thing is that the world press goes along with this garbage. Once again you burden us with the facts but in most cases where powerless to do anything significant about it. This is scary stuff Roger.
I’d be interested in your take on Nomad Century by Gaia Vince. She predicts warming in the 3 to 4C range and billions of global warming migrants.