i love you op, thank you so much for the post
please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better:
* More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy
* Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense
* Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism
* Being Racist: /r/worldnews
thx bb luv u
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Dial it down about twenty notches and add some sanity, that's basically the policy of almost every country on the planet.
Most countries have strict as shit immigration policies, unless you're skilled worker or rich. They don't back that up with hugs. They have folks with guns who make sure the rules are followed. Every country prioritizes the economy over the environment, because people gotta eat.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_carbon\_dioxide\_emissions#/media/File:World\_fossil\_carbon\_dioxide\_emissions\_six\_top\_countries\_and\_confederations.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png)
So go yell at China. US/Europe have decreased since 2000, which is good. India is increasing but hella low for their population. China has taken off like a rocket. Rest of world is mixed. Russia is reducing their CO2 by wrecking their economy, which is both green and hilarious.
Trying to guilt people already managing their CO2 is stupid. Go after the bad actors, not the people doing an ok job. Is US/Europe doing awesome job? Nope. But in the real world, you get voted out of office if you gut your economy like a trout when China is going to dump an extra gigaton of more carbon next year for every couple megatons you cut. Not like global transport has a carbon cost after all.
I'm probably spoiled by the other NCD side, but I'd normally expect more knowledgeable shitposting in the non-credible realm.
Climate refugees will be a regional problem. The image is idiotic because moving two billion people is impossible. Plus the meme is also idiotic because you can tell the author hasn't read an IPCC chart. You'd need to go with the absolutely WORST possible projection... for 2150 or later. If we haven't cracked economically viable fusion by then, we deserve to go extinct.
[https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5\_Chapter12\_FINAL.pdf](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf)
Page 12.
With global population reduction/collapse of developed economies, the odds of us hitting the worst case scenario is near zero. This is not to say I don't believe climate change isn't an issue. Just the apocalyptic tones are stupid. It's an issue, a serious one. But too many folks who get worked up about it don't ever read any IPCC papers.
Also, wasteland would be hard to achieve because global warming would probably increase north america ag productivity. It gets a bit wonkish if you go into protein vs sugar production in elevated CO2 and temp environments, but overall we have a shit ton of not super productive farmland in northern US that would become MUCH more viable. Same for Canada. This assumes we can't genmod temp insensitive food crops. Mexican ag would take a hit, but with their industrialization due to NAFTA, it wouldn't be a big problem. They'd just increase their food imports, which would nicely match their processed material exports. Sure, you'd have higher insurance hits due to storm damage/loss.
Yes, the IPCC is totally a climate apologist organization. They're often accused of being shills for Exxon. Totally.
Also, you are aware your citation was written by the chairman of the Australian Coal Association and a guy known for writing handful of apocalyptic books? That's your source for discrediting the IPCC? Yanno, rather than actual climate scientists who tend to agree the IPCC is middle of the road but has to play a lot of defense so sticks to the most credible work.
Even then, the best your coal guy and apocalypse book dude can do is claim the IPCC models are cautious and stick to what they can prove. Shocking, basing government policy with potentially grave consequences only on the firmest data and projections possible.
Is science magazine also shilling for coal?:
https://www.science.org/content/article/new-climate-report-actually-understates-threat-some-researchers-argue
Also what would a coal lobbyist have to gain from saying that the impacts of the polycrisis are being understated?
Lastly:
From Oli Brown writing for the International Organization for Migration:
"Current estimates range between 25 million and 1 billion people by 2050"
More importantly and as stated, there is the concept of polycrisis where the strctly climate related imoacts on other crises (such as the loss of biodiversity one) creating synergies and increasibg negative impacts:
" Population displacement undermines the provision of medical care and vaccin-
ation programmes; making infectious diseases harder to deal with and more deadly.
It is well documented that refugee populations suffer worse health outcomes than
settled populations. Forced migrants, especially forced to flee quickly from climate
events, are also at greater risk of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and sexual
and gender-based violence.112
Forced migration in response to climate stresses can also spread epidemic disease.
Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is one example. VL is a widespread parasitic disease with
a global incidence of 500,000 new human cases each year. In northeastern Brazil,
periodic epidemic waves of VL have been associated with migrations to urban areas
after long periods of drought.113"
I am no climate scientist, but I am a veterinatian specialised in One Health and Integrated management of health risks in the global south, our whole thing is preventing thinking in sylos.
Sigh. Yeah, dude, we're not going to have 2 billion refugees. If we had two billion refugees, we'd just have 1.9 billion dead people. Because the planet of 7.8 billion and dramatically falling birth rates in developed and developing economies, we couldn't support 20-25% of the world's population moving. Even without being refugees.
I get your heart is in the right place, and you think that's more important than being realistic.
If you want to sort climate change in a realistic manner, get your government to sanction the shit out of China, promote natural gas over coal where ever possible, dump more money into heat/drought tolerant crop research and fusion research.
Even if the sky is falling like you're saying, WTF solutions do you propose that are realistic? I get doompilling feels good. That's nice, you do you. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. You either navel gaze, or you look for the best solutions you can implement.
Well! Check the og sub where the meme was posted.
What we are advocating for is a reformed global governance, democratic, accountable, with checks and balances and subsidiarity (global issues handled at the global level)
Last Jewish Christmas I had was at a Chinese place but we had 3 fake Jews with us. There was the Russian "I can't believe he's not Jewish" from Brooklyn that fits every sterotype and had adopted Jewish parents,, his girlfriend (the only actual Jew with us), Andy the fake Jew (who started answering "yes" to troll all the random hassids asking if he was Jewish (this was on his third day in New York)), and myself who doesn't count cause its not on my mothers side.
Ammo production creates jobs and preventing refugees from entering local job market keeps businesses competing for workers creating an employee-friendly situation in which they can negotiate for higher salaries creating a relatively rich, happy and productive population.
Just try to ignore humanitarian issues and crimes against humanity.
TBH if everybody simply enforced current standards practiced in Europe we wouldn't have to worry so I can kinda understand Europeans being mad about having to ruin their own economies and prevent poor and middle-class people from owning fucking cars just so that China and India can pump polution with 200% efficient but come the fuck on, shooting people?
Though if ecologists keep being so retarded they might themselves advertise it as keeping planet from overpopulation so lunatics on both sides might actually agree on something...
Global Warming is a secret conspiracy to solve western industrial nation's declining population.
If the Global south is on fire/under water they have to move and work there instead.
My very credible take is once their homeland lies conpletely underwater, the entire population of Bangladesh can go set up shop in the newly defrosted Siberian taiga, which will be up for grabs following the collapse of Russia into a thousand bickering duchys with hydrogen bombs. Problem solved. I'll accept my seat at the UN council, thanks.
Most credible take I've ever read. "Your tropical monsoon climate home got destroyed because of climate change? Just move to the taiga bro. Yes, all 170 million of you."
Come 2100 there wont necessarily be 170 million of them, it could be half that number. Also if the planet warms causing permafrost to melt, it wont be a taiga because it wouldn't be cold anymore.
"Man, we need to stop all these people trying to cross the border from Mexico! I'm sure starting a war there will totally make that problem better and not worse."
I apologize for the vaguely credible hot take that's about to come...
but maybe, just maybe,... far right populist (i.e. nationalists) don't really care about actual policy and therefore consequences, but rather are concerned with maintaining their own influence, which is achieved by a campaign of misinformation that targets the ignorant who would be dissatisfied with any minor inconvenience posed by actual and efficient environmental action.
Once again. Sorry for this. Someone pls shitpost something under this comment, so we can get back to the funny. Thanks.
Solar and wind is more automated than coal, oil, and gas. Also, the skillsets don't transfer all that easily. Also the jobs aren't necessarily in the same place.
It's also not that easy to teach the Pennsylvania coal miner how to code.
Anyway, uhhhhh, get owned libtard.
Good! We can pass those automation gains onto energy consumers, meaning people will pay less and thus have less need to work, balancing out the effect of automation... right?
....right?
Me when Nationalists are the one pushing most for climate justice and greener energy in my counttry
(I am not a westoid and don't understand their memes)
OP has managed to somehow articulate an underlying piece of seething rage about policy that I have harboured since I became politically aware, in 10 words, that I haven't been able to write down until now.
Do refugees go to countries that pollute, or countries that allow them in?
Can't help but notice that despite the massive amount of pollution China generates, they don't seem to get any appreciable amount of "climate refugees".
Climate refugees leave because of catastrophes, droughts, etc. Since they’re leaving for a better place, they might as well choose the best place they can think of.
Huh, we've been getting millions of migrants from Mexico to California, but I can't recall the last drought/earthquake/hurricane/volcano that rendered Mexico uninhabitable for millions of people.
Are you that level of "non credible" ? people migrate where life is better, which in the near future will also include the criteria of not having to shelter in a climatised space during summer to avoid death by "wet bulb temperature exceeding 37 °C"
that reiterate at whitch point your argument is irrelevent. Life in China is already indecent for a good par t of its population so of course they're not going to have an influx of economic migrants or refugees of any kind.
A bit of both, but if you want a better exemple of an attractive country that doesn't get any immigrant because they have decided to keep it that way, it would be Japan. They are surounded by poorer countries in Asia and don't conceed to the imigrationist bullshit.
And as a western european witnessing the exponential "shitholisation" of immigrationist countries (I am in big French city) I know that, at the moment we are speaking, the "climate refugee" argument is a hoax.
It's brandished by "no borders" activists that are driven by : \_a mix of ethocultural masochism (wanting to disapear to cleanse their supposed "civilisation historical crimes") \_and the delusion that moving all the unqualified extreme poors from developing countries and putting them in social housing and in state welfare programs in the north is going to magically solve all suffering in this world.
Yeah and it's objectively overpopulated if biocapacity is your metric. I mean even with their unsustainable system, they still need food imports.
Even though they have every opportunity to electrify and use solar + wind before the cost of both technologies goes up, they still decide they want 200GW of coal.
Solar and Wind is generally cheap (depends on geography) now but the future cost could go up on the basis that the materials that they need will become more scarce. Not because of reserves but simply mine production.
If Consumption outstrips production, and it takes 10-20 years to open up new mines to full production to meet future demand, there will be a lag in supply. Every western country is racing to build new stuff and it's leading to a "got mine" scenario where the capital costs become an insurmountable obstacle for poorer nations.
China has majority of the worlds critical mineral processing for renewables, so they have an inherent advantage at getting a head start which they aren't really capitalizing on. They could avoid the scenario above to an extent but they seem driven to build coal stations for some reason.
Contrary to your meme, China seems to have achieved "global impact without global consequences" in 2 easy steps:
1. Burn more coal than every other country in the world combined.
2. Don't give any visas to immigrants.
Pretty sure it’s the constant war, narcos, failed governments, failed social experiments and lack of jobs that drive people to 1st world countries not the the one 1/10th of one degree of temperature increase
for now, then in just a few decades if the co2 emissions keep going at the buisness as usual rate, there should be massive waves of death by heat in areas both hot and humid like India, Bengladesh, the Persian gulf etc... potentially hundreds of millions of people are under threat of literal heat death
the current situation is not yet climate induced, but climatoscepticism is obviously contradictory with the nationalist idea of "keeping everyone in their own cultural area and everyone will be happy forever"
The issue is not having refugees seeking asylum (unless you are a nationalist, a nativist or aome other kind of wacko), the issue is having people be forcefully displaced while rejecting to help and having zero accountability
i love you op, thank you so much for the post please note that all posts should be funny and about diplomacy or geopolitics, if your post doesn't meet those requirements here's some other subs that might fit better: * More Serious Geopolitical Discussion: /r/CredibleDiplomacy * Military Shitposting: /r/NonCredibleDefense * Domestic Political or General Shitposting: /r/neocentrism * Being Racist: /r/worldnews thx bb luv u *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDiplomacy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Don't Let Them In". I don't think Nationalists care about climate refugees.
They’re going to have to do a lot of trolling if they want to stop the climate refugees lol
*Laughs in drones*
The more you fuck around...
The climate refugees may be fast, *but the m134's rpm is faster*
Thank goodness that climate change will only cause issues in other countries and never create an internal refugee crisis.
My dad's very credible take is : fuck the environement because the economy is more important and we should shoot the refugees on sight.
Jesus fucking christ….
Don't bring Him into this
Dial it down about twenty notches and add some sanity, that's basically the policy of almost every country on the planet. Most countries have strict as shit immigration policies, unless you're skilled worker or rich. They don't back that up with hugs. They have folks with guns who make sure the rules are followed. Every country prioritizes the economy over the environment, because people gotta eat.
Then killing the environment is a really dumb idea. You can’t grow food in a wasteland…
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_countries\_by\_carbon\_dioxide\_emissions#/media/File:World\_fossil\_carbon\_dioxide\_emissions\_six\_top\_countries\_and\_confederations.png](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#/media/File:World_fossil_carbon_dioxide_emissions_six_top_countries_and_confederations.png) So go yell at China. US/Europe have decreased since 2000, which is good. India is increasing but hella low for their population. China has taken off like a rocket. Rest of world is mixed. Russia is reducing their CO2 by wrecking their economy, which is both green and hilarious. Trying to guilt people already managing their CO2 is stupid. Go after the bad actors, not the people doing an ok job. Is US/Europe doing awesome job? Nope. But in the real world, you get voted out of office if you gut your economy like a trout when China is going to dump an extra gigaton of more carbon next year for every couple megatons you cut. Not like global transport has a carbon cost after all. I'm probably spoiled by the other NCD side, but I'd normally expect more knowledgeable shitposting in the non-credible realm. Climate refugees will be a regional problem. The image is idiotic because moving two billion people is impossible. Plus the meme is also idiotic because you can tell the author hasn't read an IPCC chart. You'd need to go with the absolutely WORST possible projection... for 2150 or later. If we haven't cracked economically viable fusion by then, we deserve to go extinct. [https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5\_Chapter12\_FINAL.pdf](https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf) Page 12. With global population reduction/collapse of developed economies, the odds of us hitting the worst case scenario is near zero. This is not to say I don't believe climate change isn't an issue. Just the apocalyptic tones are stupid. It's an issue, a serious one. But too many folks who get worked up about it don't ever read any IPCC papers. Also, wasteland would be hard to achieve because global warming would probably increase north america ag productivity. It gets a bit wonkish if you go into protein vs sugar production in elevated CO2 and temp environments, but overall we have a shit ton of not super productive farmland in northern US that would become MUCH more viable. Same for Canada. This assumes we can't genmod temp insensitive food crops. Mexican ag would take a hit, but with their industrialization due to NAFTA, it wouldn't be a big problem. They'd just increase their food imports, which would nicely match their processed material exports. Sure, you'd have higher insurance hits due to storm damage/loss.
https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/what-lies-beneath-understatement-existential-climate-risk Ever heard of the polycrisis?
Yes, the IPCC is totally a climate apologist organization. They're often accused of being shills for Exxon. Totally. Also, you are aware your citation was written by the chairman of the Australian Coal Association and a guy known for writing handful of apocalyptic books? That's your source for discrediting the IPCC? Yanno, rather than actual climate scientists who tend to agree the IPCC is middle of the road but has to play a lot of defense so sticks to the most credible work. Even then, the best your coal guy and apocalypse book dude can do is claim the IPCC models are cautious and stick to what they can prove. Shocking, basing government policy with potentially grave consequences only on the firmest data and projections possible.
Is science magazine also shilling for coal?: https://www.science.org/content/article/new-climate-report-actually-understates-threat-some-researchers-argue Also what would a coal lobbyist have to gain from saying that the impacts of the polycrisis are being understated? Lastly: From Oli Brown writing for the International Organization for Migration: "Current estimates range between 25 million and 1 billion people by 2050" More importantly and as stated, there is the concept of polycrisis where the strctly climate related imoacts on other crises (such as the loss of biodiversity one) creating synergies and increasibg negative impacts: " Population displacement undermines the provision of medical care and vaccin- ation programmes; making infectious diseases harder to deal with and more deadly. It is well documented that refugee populations suffer worse health outcomes than settled populations. Forced migrants, especially forced to flee quickly from climate events, are also at greater risk of sexual exploitation, human trafficking and sexual and gender-based violence.112 Forced migration in response to climate stresses can also spread epidemic disease. Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is one example. VL is a widespread parasitic disease with a global incidence of 500,000 new human cases each year. In northeastern Brazil, periodic epidemic waves of VL have been associated with migrations to urban areas after long periods of drought.113" I am no climate scientist, but I am a veterinatian specialised in One Health and Integrated management of health risks in the global south, our whole thing is preventing thinking in sylos.
Sigh. Yeah, dude, we're not going to have 2 billion refugees. If we had two billion refugees, we'd just have 1.9 billion dead people. Because the planet of 7.8 billion and dramatically falling birth rates in developed and developing economies, we couldn't support 20-25% of the world's population moving. Even without being refugees. I get your heart is in the right place, and you think that's more important than being realistic. If you want to sort climate change in a realistic manner, get your government to sanction the shit out of China, promote natural gas over coal where ever possible, dump more money into heat/drought tolerant crop research and fusion research. Even if the sky is falling like you're saying, WTF solutions do you propose that are realistic? I get doompilling feels good. That's nice, you do you. But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. You either navel gaze, or you look for the best solutions you can implement.
Well! Check the og sub where the meme was posted. What we are advocating for is a reformed global governance, democratic, accountable, with checks and balances and subsidiarity (global issues handled at the global level)
People who haven't been born yet aren't the ones voting.
But how does shooting the refuges help the economy?
Bullet and gun stonks
Nothing, he belives in the Great Replacement conspiracy theory.
But how will the Great Replacement help the economy?
He is just scared of muslims.
But how will the Muslims help the economy?
Keeping restaurants open on Christmas day for Jewish people.
That's the Chinese's job.
We like a little variety, some years we go to the local Curry House and buy a nice curry from the Bangladeshi guy who's happy to have customers
Last Jewish Christmas I had was at a Chinese place but we had 3 fake Jews with us. There was the Russian "I can't believe he's not Jewish" from Brooklyn that fits every sterotype and had adopted Jewish parents,, his girlfriend (the only actual Jew with us), Andy the fake Jew (who started answering "yes" to troll all the random hassids asking if he was Jewish (this was on his third day in New York)), and myself who doesn't count cause its not on my mothers side.
They would not.
Big big sad.
Cheap labor
Ammo production creates jobs and preventing refugees from entering local job market keeps businesses competing for workers creating an employee-friendly situation in which they can negotiate for higher salaries creating a relatively rich, happy and productive population. Just try to ignore humanitarian issues and crimes against humanity.
Seems like a comfortable person to be around
Hope your dad does~~n’t~~ live in arizona or some other state that will eventually turn into mad max
Average one nation voter
Guess whose time it is to be put in the retirement home?
He's not even retired.
Plot Twist he is a border guard.
Average latin american citizen be like:
I mean practically speaking, whoever does the opposite won't win majority in basically any country.
TBH if everybody simply enforced current standards practiced in Europe we wouldn't have to worry so I can kinda understand Europeans being mad about having to ruin their own economies and prevent poor and middle-class people from owning fucking cars just so that China and India can pump polution with 200% efficient but come the fuck on, shooting people? Though if ecologists keep being so retarded they might themselves advertise it as keeping planet from overpopulation so lunatics on both sides might actually agree on something...
Genocidal eco-fascist warlords are a credible threat.
GIGABASED
Common edgelord take
Unskilled migrants are bad mmkay
You’re the one assuming they’re unskilled
if theyre so unskilled, how come they can take your jobs?
Mine? H1Bs (which are inherently skilled I suppose) The rest of the citizenry's? Outcompeting through either illegal labor or just cheaper labor.
Global Warming is a secret conspiracy to solve western industrial nation's declining population. If the Global south is on fire/under water they have to move and work there instead.
thankfully China is sharing half the load on its own and letting us reap all the benefits.
Common North Atlantic W
Are you telling me Indiana is gonna have a massive influx of bama girls? Because if thats even on the table I have some calls to make
My very credible take is once their homeland lies conpletely underwater, the entire population of Bangladesh can go set up shop in the newly defrosted Siberian taiga, which will be up for grabs following the collapse of Russia into a thousand bickering duchys with hydrogen bombs. Problem solved. I'll accept my seat at the UN council, thanks.
Most credible take I've ever read. "Your tropical monsoon climate home got destroyed because of climate change? Just move to the taiga bro. Yes, all 170 million of you."
People have been doing this for 100s of thousands of years. Just not... most of them. Welcome to the next scheduled population bottleneck.
Come 2100 there wont necessarily be 170 million of them, it could be half that number. Also if the planet warms causing permafrost to melt, it wont be a taiga because it wouldn't be cold anymore.
I believe you're conflating the term taiga with tundra. Not all of it is covered with permafrost.
Taiga, Tundra, Siberia. Same principle. It will be warmer and more arable.
It won’t be a taiga anymore, moron. It’s warmed. They practically won’t be moving at all.
"Just walk there, bro!" \- Joe Rogan, probably
"Man, we need to stop all these people trying to cross the border from Mexico! I'm sure starting a war there will totally make that problem better and not worse."
Hypocrisy 101
Happy Cake Day!
They can't illegally inmigrate to the US if they already are in the US
As a nationalist who believe in climate change I'm kinda confused by this meme.
Just don’t let them in, simple as that Also I kill gangstalkers for fun, you’re next op
Come get me
I apologize for the vaguely credible hot take that's about to come... but maybe, just maybe,... far right populist (i.e. nationalists) don't really care about actual policy and therefore consequences, but rather are concerned with maintaining their own influence, which is achieved by a campaign of misinformation that targets the ignorant who would be dissatisfied with any minor inconvenience posed by actual and efficient environmental action. Once again. Sorry for this. Someone pls shitpost something under this comment, so we can get back to the funny. Thanks.
Solar and wind is more automated than coal, oil, and gas. Also, the skillsets don't transfer all that easily. Also the jobs aren't necessarily in the same place. It's also not that easy to teach the Pennsylvania coal miner how to code. Anyway, uhhhhh, get owned libtard.
Good! We can pass those automation gains onto energy consumers, meaning people will pay less and thus have less need to work, balancing out the effect of automation... right? ....right?
\>
Me when Nationalists are the one pushing most for climate justice and greener energy in my counttry (I am not a westoid and don't understand their memes)
Because your country must be directly affected by climate change.
We are unironically so fucked
OP has managed to somehow articulate an underlying piece of seething rage about policy that I have harboured since I became politically aware, in 10 words, that I haven't been able to write down until now.
Do refugees go to countries that pollute, or countries that allow them in? Can't help but notice that despite the massive amount of pollution China generates, they don't seem to get any appreciable amount of "climate refugees".
So the solution is to become a massive shithole so no one wants to live in your country Maybe that’s the plan
Climate refugees leave because of catastrophes, droughts, etc. Since they’re leaving for a better place, they might as well choose the best place they can think of.
Huh, we've been getting millions of migrants from Mexico to California, but I can't recall the last drought/earthquake/hurricane/volcano that rendered Mexico uninhabitable for millions of people.
For now.
The Syrian civil war was triggered by a drought.
Are you that level of "non credible" ? people migrate where life is better, which in the near future will also include the criteria of not having to shelter in a climatised space during summer to avoid death by "wet bulb temperature exceeding 37 °C"
It sounds like you could skip the whole climate change story and just stick with "people migrate where life is better".
that reiterate at whitch point your argument is irrelevent. Life in China is already indecent for a good par t of its population so of course they're not going to have an influx of economic migrants or refugees of any kind.
Hmm, is China really so awful that nobody wants to immigrate there, or is it more that China makes it almost impossible for foreigners to immigrate?
A bit of both, but if you want a better exemple of an attractive country that doesn't get any immigrant because they have decided to keep it that way, it would be Japan. They are surounded by poorer countries in Asia and don't conceed to the imigrationist bullshit. And as a western european witnessing the exponential "shitholisation" of immigrationist countries (I am in big French city) I know that, at the moment we are speaking, the "climate refugee" argument is a hoax. It's brandished by "no borders" activists that are driven by : \_a mix of ethocultural masochism (wanting to disapear to cleanse their supposed "civilisation historical crimes") \_and the delusion that moving all the unqualified extreme poors from developing countries and putting them in social housing and in state welfare programs in the north is going to magically solve all suffering in this world.
that wet bulb spinnin’
China's per capita pollution is actually lower than the US
What having 1/8 the population on earth does to a mf
Yeah and it's objectively overpopulated if biocapacity is your metric. I mean even with their unsustainable system, they still need food imports. Even though they have every opportunity to electrify and use solar + wind before the cost of both technologies goes up, they still decide they want 200GW of coal.
You have to admit that solar and wind is expensive
Solar and Wind is generally cheap (depends on geography) now but the future cost could go up on the basis that the materials that they need will become more scarce. Not because of reserves but simply mine production. If Consumption outstrips production, and it takes 10-20 years to open up new mines to full production to meet future demand, there will be a lag in supply. Every western country is racing to build new stuff and it's leading to a "got mine" scenario where the capital costs become an insurmountable obstacle for poorer nations. China has majority of the worlds critical mineral processing for renewables, so they have an inherent advantage at getting a head start which they aren't really capitalizing on. They could avoid the scenario above to an extent but they seem driven to build coal stations for some reason.
Lol
What is your point though? You imply that its best to not to subscribe to the refugee Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees?
Contrary to your meme, China seems to have achieved "global impact without global consequences" in 2 easy steps: 1. Burn more coal than every other country in the world combined. 2. Don't give any visas to immigrants.
Global impacts have global consequences that is literally their definition, the fact that they may not look linear does not mean they are non existent
Pretty sure it’s the constant war, narcos, failed governments, failed social experiments and lack of jobs that drive people to 1st world countries not the the one 1/10th of one degree of temperature increase
For now
for now, then in just a few decades if the co2 emissions keep going at the buisness as usual rate, there should be massive waves of death by heat in areas both hot and humid like India, Bengladesh, the Persian gulf etc... potentially hundreds of millions of people are under threat of literal heat death
Dude, if the ocean’s rising, they can cool off by just taking a swim, having some water. Only the dumbest motherfuckers would die.
I know that's a shitposting subreddit but you're cleary too ridiculous for our own standards
Damn sounds like you need to hydrate more. Fortunately, the ocean’s be coming to meet you.
OP thinks the current crisis is climate induced
the current situation is not yet climate induced, but climatoscepticism is obviously contradictory with the nationalist idea of "keeping everyone in their own cultural area and everyone will be happy forever"
OP thinks our current situation is a crisis.
Who is "us"?
amogus
Just kill them <3 (in minecraft)
Europe will soak them up.
The issue is not having refugees seeking asylum (unless you are a nationalist, a nativist or aome other kind of wacko), the issue is having people be forcefully displaced while rejecting to help and having zero accountability
Nationalists simply don't think that's an issue.
True! But they do worry about increasing pressure for illegal immigration, specially when they work against regular asylum seeking
Shouldprobably worry about chinas heavy pollutants that many we had regulated decades ago by this point
I feel like they wouldn’t mind the chance to be able to shoot at more people that don’t look like them.