Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Climate Change is Forcing One Person From Their Home Every Two Seconds, Oxfam Says (cnn.com) 184

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Climate-fueled disasters have forced about 20 million people a year to leave their homes in the past decade -- equivalent to one every two seconds -- according to a new report from Oxfam. From a news report: This makes the climate the biggest driver of internal displacement for the period, with the world's poorer countries at the highest risk, despite their smaller contributions to global carbon pollution compared to richer nations. People are seven times more likely to be internally displaced by floods, cyclones and wildfires than volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, and three times more likely than by conflict, according to the report released Monday, The issue is one of a raft of topics set to be discussed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference COP 25, which starts on Monday in Madrid. Oxfam is calling on the international community to do more to fund recovery programs for poorer countries affected by the climate emergency, which is set to intensify as extreme weather events are projected to increase in both severity and frequency.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Climate Change is Forcing One Person From Their Home Every Two Seconds, Oxfam Says More

Climate Change is Forcing One Person From Their Home Every Two Seconds, Oxfam Says

Comments Filter:
  • Lack of jobs is forcing one person from their home every two seconds but fixing foreign issues before fixing local issues gives you more brownie points.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by spun ( 1352 )

      Lack of jobs is caused by right wing trickle down economics, which back when it was invented in the late 1800s was called "horse and sparrow economics." The idea being, overfeed a horse oats and a sparrow can pick some out of the horse shit.

      If give a rich guy a bunch of money, he will invest it into some place with good returns. If you took that money from the poor, well, they have less to spend, so create less demand. Businesses only hire new employees when demand outstrips capacity. So instead of investin

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 )
        I guess those tax cuts and such are why the US job market has collapsed, we have rampant unemployment, and wages are falling. Right?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by spun ( 1352 )

          We were told that the tax cuts for the rich would boost the economy. That has not happened. We are teetering on the brink of another recession, thanks in part to those cuts.

          https://fortune.com/2019/09/02... [fortune.com]
          https://www.forbes.com/sites/c... [forbes.com]

          • Re:Lack of jobs is forcing one person from their h (Score:5, Informative)

            by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @03:06PM (#59485000) Journal
            Wait, so the stock markets aren't at record highs [marketwatch.com], the unemployment rate isn't at historical lows [washingtonpost.com] (importantly for blacks and hispanics [cnbc.com]), and median and average incomes [frbatlanta.org] are not increasing? It's an economy about to implode? Really?

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by spun ( 1352 )

              Yeah, really. Fundamentals do not look good. Anyone who invests already knows this and is preparing.

              The stock market is not a good indicator of economic health. It's also not people investing into companies, it is people buying stocks from others who already own them.

              Median and average home prices are increasing because the rich are buying them up as investments, like I said.

              The effects of tax cuts are never felt immediately. it takes time for the effects to manifest. The boom we are seeing is the result of

              • The effects of tax cuts are never felt immediately. it takes time for the effects to manifest. The boom we are seeing is the result of the fundamental work put into the US economy by Obama and the democrats. That's how things go, historically. Republicans ruin the economy, but it takes time to see the damage. Democrats come in and fix things, but again, it takes time to see the positive effects.Â

                That's strange. I don't remember anyone blaming Clinton for the dotcom bust. That got laid at Bushes feet.

                Carter sure did a bang up job with the economy too.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by spun ( 1352 )

                  Here's a little something from the US Senate, showing that the economy always does better under Democratic rather than Republican administrations:
                  https://www.jec.senate.gov/pub... [senate.gov]

                  More on the topic of dcemocrats being consistently better for the economy:
                  https://evonomics.com/economis... [evonomics.com]

                  Even your god-emperor Trump agrees, the economy does better under democrats than republicans:
                  https://www.forbes.com/sites/r... [forbes.com]

                  Now, I would love for you to demonstrate, once again, what conservatives do when the facts are not o

                  • Here's a little something from the US Senate, showing that the economy always does better under Democratic rather than Republican administrations

                    No, it does not show that. It shows (if we assume it's valid) that such a correlation held in the past. It does not demonstrate cause-effect, or predict the future.

                    It is also rather interesting that the information at that link is presented by... Democrats. Who else?

                    And... hmmm... at present the economy is looking better than at any time in the last few decades, and this is NOT a Democratic administration. Strange, that.

                    More on the topic of dcemocrats being consistently better for the economy:

                    As for this link, it uses GDP to measure "a good economy". Well, duh. By that meas

            • You know that guy on the corner yelling about the end of the world? He'll inevitably be right one day.
              The economy can't boom all the time, and when there's a downturn all the naysayers will come screaming out of the woodwork about how they're right. All they have to do is keep doom-ing and gloom-ing until it happens, facts be dammed.

          • Your nickname is quite fitting.
            If you really read the articles, they don't attribute a possible future recession to evil capitalism, but just the norms for a purported "business cycle", the timing of which is as much speculation as anything. By no means are they saying a recession has begun and we've been doing it wrong.
            There's also the fact that if things do eventually start to slow, they won't be nearly as bad because we had a booming economy to put us in a good place.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by gtall ( 79522 )

          Yes, well dumping a $1 Trillion into the economy in a year with deficit spending does tend to keep employment up and wages from falling. That's sustainable until it isn't. Then all the jokers who voted for that tax cut will mysteriously find other lines of work so that they cannot be held accountable. There is no free lunch.

          Incidentally, servicing the debt every year will beat the amount spent on Defense in a year or so. And, just to make things a bit tighter, SS and Medicare are pay as you go. Yes they hav

  • OK Doomer! (Score:3, Funny)

    by JudeanPeople'sFront ( 729601 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @01:43PM (#59484562)
    "OK Doomer" is a great meme! This is the first time I had the chance to use it. But yeah, 99% of the gloom-and-doom predictions in the media are bullshit. Left-wing, right-wing, doesn't matter. Bull shit.

    • How about giving evidence to support your claim?

      Posting BS "statistics" that you just made up doesn't do anyone any good. Not you. Not people reading your post. Definitely not people who are actually trying to do something about climate change. Either post real facts backed up by real evidence, or don't say anything at all. Posting BS is an act of destruction.

      • "real facts backed up by real evidence"? Ha! Real, according to who? Different sides see "facts" and "evidence" differently. I've seen them all, I have followed the debate around AGW for 30+ years, since university (MA in Environmental Sciences & Policy)

        Whoever is right, whatever changes are happening (the climate probably is changing and we probably have some role in that) - the changes are small, slow, and gradual. There is no hockey stick. We are not in an emergency. Polar bears are better th

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It's not a prediction, this is actually happening.

      Some people will just keep denying it until the water reaches their front door.

  • The Cloud of Doubt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @01:44PM (#59484566)

    It really is sad that we must question every study these days, wondering who paid for it in order to abuse the results to further an agenda.

    In this particular case, reading "one every two seconds" click-bait smells more like an excuse to ignore or destroy immigration laws. Coupling that to climate change makes me question an ulterior motive even more.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      That's some well thought out logic, there. Have you ever thought to just check the fucking sources? Do you know how to do that?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by cb88 ( 1410145 )
        Checking sources isn't enough... it get valid studies you have to have a complete chain of valid data and valid determinations based on that data and all too often that is done in a completely unscientific manner, or conclusions are drawn with strong bias.

      • A quick look and I see nothing in there showing maps of flood planes and how they have changed over time or occurrences of more people or less people living inside the flood planes. These are things that need to be taken into account.

      • Re: did you check the sources?

        Yes! I read the linked CNN article. And the link in the article to the Oxfam report. Which points to an article about oxfam abusing kids.

        So the sources say oxfam abuses kids, and offers no evidence for the displaced persons thing.

      • That's some well thought out logic, there. Have you ever thought to just check the fucking sources? Do you know how to do that?

        Today billions in justification are created with nothing more than some "bombshell" study riddled with manipulated bullshit for someone's gain. It's all too easy to manipulate the masses, which is even more reason to question every-fucking-thing when it comes to statistics and studies like this.

        Like I implied before, follow the money. Do you fucking know why you should do that?

        • day billions in justification are created with nothing more than some "bombshell" study riddled with manipulated bullshit for someone's gain.

          Which of the tens of thousands of studies on climate change do you call "bombshell", exactly? The last IPCC report in 2014 had more than 9200 studies in it. http://ipcc.ch/ [ipcc.ch]

          Like I implied before, follow the money.

          I agree. And following the money leads to climate change denial coming from the oil & gas industry, which is literally the largest, most profit

          • Like I implied before, follow the money.

            I agree. And following the money leads to climate change denial coming from the oil & gas industry, which is literally the largest, most profitable industry on planet Earth.

            Ah, so you're just going to ignore the other side of the coin here, as if there's not trillions at stake for the wind and solar industry as they attempt to become the largest, most profitable industry on planet Earth.

            Denying change for profits sake isn't any better that championing lies for the same damn reason. Trust, but Verify. Every time.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DogDude ( 805747 )
              Yes, I'm sure. "Big solar" has been pushing an agenda in every university on the planet for the past 40-50 years or so. Yup. Makes total sense. Those giant solar companies have been paying those hundreds of thousands of scientists for decades to fake their research tens of thousands of times. You really should consider telling the world about what is obviously the largest conspiracy in the history of the world. I think you're onto something.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by DogDude ( 805747 )
                I'm sorry, I don't usually respond to myself, but I have to respond with more information. It turns out that you're RIGHT. I was curious about your idea, so I asked a few scientists at my university, and as it turns out, they've ALL been getting paid by Big Solar and Big Wind for decades. I was curious about how all of those researchers were able to afford such nice cars and clothes, but as it turns out, you were right. They're all being paid to fake their data! It's a shame that Big Oil and Gas don't

    • It really is sad that we must question every study these days, wondering who paid for it in order to abuse the results to further an agenda.

      Why is that sad? That's exactly what people should be doing. The only thing that's sad is that people don't do it enough, particularly when it comes to positions that they themselves are in support of or when it's a matter concerning one of their own sacred cows.

      In this particular case, reading "one every two seconds" click-bait smells more like an excuse to ignore or destroy immigration laws.

      It doesn't seem like it makes for a good excuse. Take a country like Mexico for example. Pretty big place. If some disaster were to occur around Oaxaca it scarcely follows that people would necessarily need to relocate to an entirely different count

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hey! ( 33014 )

        It is "sad" in the rhetorical sense. People say something is "sad" this way when they're telling you how to feel about something (in this case really it should be "contemptible" because sadness doesn't come into it) without bothering with justification.

        Truly sad (or contemptible) things don't need to be tagged as such.

    • Re:The Cloud of Doubt (Score:5, Informative)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @02:48PM (#59484934) Homepage Journal

      It really is sad that we must question every study these days, wondering who paid for it in order to abuse the results to further an agenda.

      Oxfam is a well-known charity founded in 1942 and focused on poverty issues. In this case the source in question is not a "study"; it's a report which aggregates information from multiple sources. The source data for the one person/2 second claim is from the International Displacement Monitoring Centre of Geneva, Switzerland, which receives funding from multiple governments -- the US, Germany, Norway, and Australia among them. The IDMC is a project of the Norwegian Refugee Council, which was established in the aftermath of WW2.

      If you're going to poison the well, at least take the trouble to identify a culprit and his supposed motive. If you'd like to take a more substantive crack at the claim, the report is available here [openrepository.com]. If you want a crack at thesource data, look here [internal-d...cement.org].

      • Is no record at all of normal natural disasters versus 'AGW caused' ones.

        So, for them to be right, I guess there has never been a flood before AGW was a thing? Never a Forest Fire? No Storms? No Droughts?

        It really must have been idylic back then when there was nothing but nice moderate weather and wood didnt burn..

      • It really is sad that we must question every study these days, wondering who paid for it in order to abuse the results to further an agenda.

        Oxfam is a well-known charity founded in 1942 and focused on poverty issues. In this case the source in question is not a "study"; it's a report which aggregates information from multiple sources. The source data for the one person/2 second claim is from the International Displacement Monitoring Centre of Geneva, Switzerland, which receives funding from multiple governments -- the US, Germany, Norway, and Australia among them. The IDMC is a project of the Norwegian Refugee Council, which was established in the aftermath of WW2.

        If you're going to poison the well, at least take the trouble to identify a culprit and his supposed motive. If you'd like to take a more substantive crack at the claim, the report is available here [openrepository.com]. If you want a crack at thesource data, look here [internal-d...cement.org].

        Have the metrics been changed to make this report that much more "damning" than previous reports? Moving the goalposts is an all-too-common tactic to manipulate numbers and make a situation look suddenly "dire", especially on hot-button topics like climate change.

        This is but one reason to question all reporting today. The evening news anchors salary wasn't tied to clicks and views before. Now it is, with the end result being the sensationalist clickbait "reporting" we have going on today. I really don't

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          This is nothing that has changed since the advent of the Internet. NGO reports like this try to take the raw data and express it in a way that make sense to people, in a way that causes them to actually consider doing something.

          Stalin famously noted that "A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic." That's how you become a hero in a country where you (according to modern estimates of mortality in Stalin's political purges) kill a million of your own citizens.

          The same principle is at work

    • It really is sad that we must question every study these days, wondering who paid for it in order to abuse the results to further an agenda.

      In this particular case, reading "one every two seconds" click-bait smells more like an excuse to ignore or destroy immigration laws. Coupling that to climate change makes me question an ulterior motive even more.

      Sad but true. The commentary about rich countries further sets them up for some type of reparations or 'take in gobs of immigrants as penance'. I'll only support mass immigration when those pushing for it are forced to live with the consequences. Otherwise it's just a cover for them to get cheap gardeners and maids in their secure, and entirely sheltered, neighborhoods.

  • Too much noise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @01:54PM (#59484644)

    Worsening flooding at this stage is primarily caused by land mismanagement not climate change. Thanks to "global warming" governments the world over have a convenient excuse for blaming others for their own (in)action rather than face the prospect of being held accountable locally.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by blindseer ( 891256 )

      Worsening flooding at this stage is primarily caused by land mismanagement not climate change. Thanks to "global warming" governments the world over have a convenient excuse for blaming others for their own (in)action rather than face the prospect of being held accountable locally.

      That's right. In some cases it is far worse, the tyrants that run these places are actively destroying the environment to impose poverty.

      I recall hearing of a woman beaten nearly to death for planting trees. How is planting trees a crime? Well, if people have trees to grow fruit and nuts, and later wood, then they don't have to go to the government for food or lumber or fuel. If people can create wealth in the form of an orchard then they could potentially have more wealth than the tyrants that get thei

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        Claims of "global warming" induced storms is just an excuse to export this tyranny and thievery to the USA and other free nations.

        Hmmm... ramblings of a random person on the Internet, or tens of thousands of scientists.... Hmmm.... who should I believe....?

  • This type of sensationalist headline isn't helpful, at all, because it doesn't look at any of the root causes of poverty. For example:

    • What is these folks' average education level?
    • How many children per average do they have?
    • Are they represented by a democratically elected gov't, or something else?

    Etc. It's obvious that extreme poverty correlates closely with low education levels, non-representative governments and the general absence of Western-style democracy, and having way too many kids. Of course they

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      You don't need to go that far. This report fails basic math AND topic uses weasel words like "climate-fueled" which means absolutely nothing.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DogDude ( 805747 )
        I would argue that "weasel words" means nothing. Care to rebut?

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by DogDude ( 805747 )
            I see. So you don't understand what "climate-fueled" means in this context? Would you like me to explain it to you using small words?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

              It means nothing, because climate-fueled means "it is increased by climate change by some unspecified amount".

              Which is how using weasel words works. It pretends to make a strong and specific argument while making a weak and unspecific one.

              Why, are you going to argue otherwise? If so, it would explain why you would need small words to do so, as to make a counter-argument to this point would require a rather small mind.

      • Re:Extreme poverty doesn't happen in a vacuum (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @02:17PM (#59484782)

        You don't need to go that far. This report fails basic math AND topic uses weasel words like "climate-fueled" which means absolutely nothing.

        OK, I'll bite. There has been conflict the last 20 years in Nigeria between herder and farmer tribal groups fighting over arable/pasture land. It's killed over 10,000 people and displaced several hundred thousand. It's driven by social and political factors including ethnic/religious differences, population growth, and the proliferation of small arms, and also environmental factors such as desertification of land and soil degradation. Desertification is itself driven by many factors, but one of those is climate change (up to a 20% increased effect according to some studies). Therefore, this conflict, while localized and relatively low-intensity, can arguably be attributed in part to climate change.

        • Re:Extreme poverty doesn't happen in a vacuum (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Luckyo ( 1726890 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @02:57PM (#59484976)

          And that is exactly what "weasel words" do. They are made to pretend that a strong statement has been made, in this case "this problem is fuelled by climate change".

          And when you break it down, it's a fraction of a factor in a fraction of a factor in a fraction of a factor that caused "the problem". I.e. such a small input into the array of inputs that cause a problem, it's not even remotely reliably measurable as to how much. Which is why you went for a second set of weasel words to hide this, by stating "accord to SOME studies" and then providing the highest value of a fraction of a fraction that you could find, and then masked this by making it the ONLY specific number to provide, making it appear as if this is accurate, big and relevant number.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

            Which is why you went for a second set of weasel words to hide this, by stating "accord to SOME studies" and then providing the highest value of a fraction of a fraction that you could find, and then masked this by making it the ONLY specific number to provide, making it appear as if this is accurate, big and relevant number.

            OK, here's the study:
            Zeng, Ning; Yoon, Jinho (1 September 2009). "Expansion of the world's deserts due to vegetation-albedo feedback under global warming". Geophysical Research Letters. 36 (17): L17401.

            Enjoy.

            Also, I clearly relay in another post how one could quantify the impact of climate change on the intensity of that particular conflict.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

              You really are so ideologically blinded that you didn't understand my argument?

              Because you haven't addressed it at all. All you did was reinforce your obfuscation by insisting that you in fact did provide a relevant number to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction because "there's an authority that states that in relation to this fraction of the fraction, there's this specific study".

              Whereas my argument is that to the whole being talked about, the number is so small, it's irrelevant even if you found an out

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

                You really are so ideologically blinded that you didn't understand my argument?

                No, I'm saying that it is not a weasel word because it is demonstrable that climate can, has, and does effect both poverty and conflict and is therefore quantifiable. You can easily look and see from the historical record what happens when resource availability shifts or large numbers of people migrate and quantify the resulting poverty, conflict, etc. Even if you do not agree that AGW is real, you can't deny the effects of climate on human geography.

                And I never said it was an overriding factor, just that

    • You forgot to mention the climate-fueled ethnic cleansing in Rawanda.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      This type of sensationalist headline isn't helpful, at all, because it doesn't look at any of the root causes of poverty. For example:

      • How many children per average do they have?

      • ... It's obvious that extreme poverty correlates closely with ...having way too many kids

      Higher numbers of children, especially in poor or undeveloped states, is generally considered a result of poverty, not a cause. It's driven by a number of factors such as infant mortality rates and general death rates (more infants/kids tend to die in poorer states), a reliance upon children for economic support of the family (more kids means more mouths to feed but also means more family members able to make some sort of income or production, whether working in fields, factories, kilns,etc or even begging

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      You're replying to the wrong article. This report isn't about poverty. It's about climate change.
      • Poverty kills more, and forces more movement, than climate change. For that matter, conflict does as well - and there is quite a bit of correlation between poverty and conflict.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          Poverty kills more, and forces more movement, than climate change. For that matter, conflict does as well - and there is quite a bit of correlation between poverty and conflict.

          And climate change is predicted to have a correlation between both poverty and conflict.

        • Didn't you even bother to read the summary? I know reading the article is too much trouble, but your made up claim is contradicted by information that's right there in the summary.

          People are seven times more likely to be internally displaced by floods, cyclones and wildfires than volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, and three times more likely than by conflict

  • How can you make such a claim and call it science. How can you tell what part of flooding is 'natural' vs 'climate changed' caused?
    Even completely granting there is some, how to assign a percentage? no science to be seen here, no control group , no way of accounting for error.
    I guess ALL flooding has ALWAYS been caused by human beings.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      What, specifically, do you see wrong with the research cited by Oxfam?

      http://www.internal-displaceme... [internal-d...cement.org]

      • The simple fact that it implies ALL flooding, forest fires, droughts, etc to be caused by global warming? Really?
        The simple fact that it is NOT research, it is interpretation (and an obviously bad one even at first glance)

        'The Philippines’ location along the Pacific “typhoon belt” and “ring of fire” makes is particularly prone to typhoons, floods and earthquakes, which displace millions of people across the country each year'

        You see that 'each year?' your data even clear states

    • Re:?? no control group... no science. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @05:16PM (#59485476) Homepage Journal

      Good point, we need to find a second Earth to use as a control.

      By the way I'm looking for volunteers in my double blind study of the effectiveness of parachutes. If you sign up you get to go skydiving for free and there's a 50/50 chance you will get a parachute or a placebo.

  • ... and wonder how in the heck can this "one person" be moving out of their home every two seconds because of climate change?

    Yeah, I know what is meant now, but when I first read it, I was all like, "wtf?"

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rossdee ( 243626 )

      Presumably that 'one person' leaves the home on second one , and then returns on the second second, ready to leave again.

      Lather, rinse, repeat...

      My guess is that they are going out to check the weather
      Is it snowing yet?

  • This appears to be a link to the oxfam report from 12/2 [cachefly.net].

    The cnn and abc pages just seem to want to link to other stories about oxfam

  • Oxfam report says 20 million PER YEAR displaced by climate change. Reporters and editors world wide evidently can't do their jobs.

    https://www.oxfam.org/en/press... [oxfam.org]

  • Such bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cs668 ( 89484 ) <cservin&cromagnon,com> on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @02:08PM (#59484714)

    This has more to do with overpopulation than climate change. Look at the population trends of the countries in question, it is unsustainable. Ever since the 70 where western countries started shipping in food, vitamins, and began inoculation programs the population rates have gone crazy. You can't make all of those changes without decreasing the birth rate, or you'll have this problem.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by leonbev ( 111395 )

      At this point, it sounds like the issue is only impacting developing nations that do not have the money to build flood prevention measures like levies or floodwalls.

      Trump isn't going to want to do anything about this until some of his golf courses in Florida are underwater. Then, it will become a big deal. HUGE, even.

  • Think Of The Children (Score:3)

    by kackle ( 910159 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @02:10PM (#59484722)
    You know what'll fix this? More babies!

  • People build homes where disasters happen (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WoodstockJeff ( 568111 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @02:56PM (#59484970) Homepage

    It isn't just the poor that build in places prone to (insert disaster here).

    I live in a relatively wealthy part of the US; there is a premium for land along rivers that flood EVERY YEAR, so that they launch their boats whenever they want.

    A friend lives in the Philippines... and built a new house right along a flood control embankment... because that's where he could afford to lease the land from the government.

    When he was in the Dominican Republic, housing was built right where previous houses had been swept away by previous landslides. And those houses were swept away in landslides.

    Were this people "driven from their homes" because weather happened, or because they were unfortunate/stupid enough to build where the disasters WOULD happen?

  • Climate Change is Forcing One Person From Their Ho (Score:3)

    by Tulsa_Time ( 2430696 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2019 @03:56PM (#59485158)

    Climate Change is Forcing One Person From Their Home Every Two Seconds...

    Man, that person has to be getting tired...

  • Oh.

    Wait.

    It is.

    And the damage to the US alone is going to be in the tens of trillions by that point, all so we can artificially subsidize 500 people who own the majority of shares of the fossil fuel industry, and who depend on tax incentives, depreciation, deductions, exclusions, and exemptions.

    Get rid of those and let the market fix it. It's called capitalism, you might want to check it out some time.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close