To think climate change will force a complete rethinking about immigration?

[OneMoreBanana]

I'm not sure how many people, on the ground or in government policy making, have connected the dots here.

The climate crisis disproportionately affects the global south, where average temperatures are hotter, infrastructure less developed and available economic resources for mitigation lower. This is already making life in some areas, that have previously supported human communities for thousands of years, near impossible. There is talk of whole cities having to be abandoned.

The same crisis is primarily created by the industrialised countries of the global north, whose per capita emissions far outweigh those of less industrialised countries.

So if/when the large scale exodus of millions of people from no-longer-habitable environments becomes inevitable, two questions arise: Is it MORAL to disallow those people asylum in countries like the UK? And is it PRACTICABLE to do so - when the "small boats" issue becomes an increasingly large number of increasingly large boats, do we literally just view it as warfare and gun them down, or what?

These questions apply regardless of how you feel about immigration currently. If you are a hardline Brexiteer or otherwise strongly for controlling and reducing immigration, can you see a point in the future where it will no longer be tenable, either morally or practically, to maintain that position? And if you are liberal on immigration, can you see a point where having to be even more liberal will mean letting go altogether of many aspects of the UK's (and other countries') "identity"?

Interested in a range of perspectives - I think there's a whole bunch of sacred cows that may end up slaughtered by this. However if you believe that climate change either isn't happening or isn't due to human activity, please just jog on past and grow a brain cell or two. Life is too short.

What @angelos02 has written is the truth. Everyone is pissing in the wind with net zero and the like. If we truly gave a shit we wouldn’t be wasting resources by posting on MN.

I think harder borders will get put in place, it’s just a matter of time. Poland has taken loads of Ukrainian refugees but won’t take others. It can be done, maybe in our lifetime or our children’s but the scramble for resources will only intensify.

Im not a fan of summer I love winter and all the weather mumsnet hates.

Its currently 32 in my area now, but im at a cool 20 indoors.
My change was getting air con.

The new arrivals are still consumers, and consumers are essential for the economy. The state gives them money (just like British people on low incomes), which they spend, and the companies they spend their money at benefit from having customers, so grow their profit. The state then taxes that profit.

The distinction between the state and the private sector is not nearly as important as is often made out. Imagine a 100% communist country where absolutely everything was owned by the state, so they pay the population (wages, salary, or benefits) and get money back from the population spending in state-owned businesses. They would still need population growth to maintain economic growth.

Is this a joke? People should earn money and spend the money they, themself earned. Not spend money that someone else earned, paid tax on, for someone else to spend! I don't think I've ever read anything so bonkers. So people on benefits are doing the country a favour by spending someone else's money?!!!

Why growth though? It’s a serious question. Why does the economy always have to grow?

We need a referendum on immigration, and then the government can just get on with what's decided without worrying about the left or the right of their parties.

1. Zero or near zero immigration
2. controlled immigration
3. Open borders

I don’t see how this can function. There needs to be external money coming in to fund the state. Northern Korea still trades outside to get money to fund things.

Just using state money so people act as a middle person to hand it over doesn’t do much. You could use that funding directly if it exists, by lowering taxes or grants. The consumer isn’t necessary as a way to hand over state money.

Controlled immigration - At least enough money to not have to rely on the NHS or state schools. Then enough earnings to be a net contributor. We've enough people taking out more than they are paying in. Lets not bring in more.

You misunderstand.
I did not say "should". I was merely describing the way a modern economy works, from the perspective of the whole country, not from the perspective of any one individual.
A growing economy needs an increasing population and an increasing money supply. It matters not to that economy just which individuals are doing the producing and which are doing the consuming, as long as there is enough production and consumption going on.

Of course this is totally unsustainable. You can't have infinite economic growth on a finite planet. But do you hear any politician saying we should abandon economic growth?

To make shareholders richer. We know the rich are struggling greatly and we need to help them as much as possible!

I don’t think it’s just this, politicians need to to get close to pledges made.

@HoppityBun
j agree with the climate tourism. I can see fewer people heading south for summer holidays. Spoke to someone this week from Italy who has come here for a month., she says more people are doing this.
I also think larger numbers of people will migrate north due to increasing population, few opportunities and extreme heat and drought conditions.

Because money is lent into existence on the condition that it is repaid with interest. So growth is needed to generate the money to pay back the interest.

You could have zero economic growth in an economy where there was zero profit and money did not earn any interest.
There have been experiments done whereby money had negative interest, i.e. the longer you kept is the less it was worth, so the incentive was always to spend it all ASAP before it lost its value. Can't recall the outcome and can't be bothered to Google it now, but jut imagine a world where no money ever earned any interest.

The answer is to help poorer countries develop so they can mitigate the effects of climate change. Net zero for the UK will only impoverish us and then the migrants will be just as poor here as at home.

When is all this going to happen?

See James Lovelock. Rip

Why do we need money at all? Who has embedded this system whereby the majority are struggling to make ends meet and a small minority are holding all the power and living in luxury.

Money is useful as a medium of exchange.
The problems start when it is used as a store of wealth. Hence the need for zero-interest money.

Maybe Muslims are right when it comes to interest.

Oh god no

not another simple referendum on an extremely complex issue - not after last time

Most people don't want immigration unless it is very highly skilled. As for job gaps, ask the 1 million NEETs.

IMHO they tend to obey the letter of the law and not the spirit, so still find ways to make money out of having money.

I am not sure it follows. A country can decide to have a hardline immigration policy irrespective of push factors that will lead people to flee their homes. The main issue is political will.

I think this is the issue seldom mentioned.
huge increases in population particularly in vulnerable countries with drought , floods, extreme heat, no jobs.

TBF, we should be more worried by the coming water and food shortages, the rising sea level and flooding causing some areas of the UK to be uninhabitable and other such things....