I sincerely doubt most people will be starving. Global population should peak about 25% higher than now, agriculture and diets will change and move - adapt, but it won’t be equitable. So I do expect my kids may need to fight - in a non-violent way - for a better distribution of water and other resources.
So - think - you really prefer to keep immigrants in overheating floodable crowded cities - ghettoes ? By the way, I am myself an immigrant, I now live in a village, and do struggle. I also studied climate science and demography and technology trends, so I think about the longer term - places people struggled to live in the past, and the future, are not the same. We should use our knowledge to help those who move gain a better life than otherwise.
The demographics of north Africa are quite different from central Africa - in the north it’s neither so young nor so large (except Egypt). On the other hand, as the Sahara (Hadley cell) moves north, if we’re lucky there just might be a bit more rain along its southern fringe, whilst the outlook for the Mediterranean side is bleak.
Well some small steps could include - taxes shifting from income to wealth, land and luxury use of resources, lowering barriers to voting for younger people (e.g. the requirement for stable residence disenfranchises people who move about), return to free education, a lower voting age and upper age-limit for politicians… Yet gerontocracy is a problem even in youth-skewed continents like Africa. So to be honest I don’t know, maybe some people here on Lemmy have more revolutionary ideas…?
Yes, this seems inevitable, and given Europe’s relative historical contribution to climate change, I think we have a moral obligation to welcome some, as (to some extent) their right, not charity. An issue, however, is that immigrants tend to gather in crowded hot cities near sea-level, just the places we should plan to slowly depopulate, while it’s rarer to see African faces in sparsely populated upland rural areas, where there are more empty houses and older people needing services. Research about climate migration focused mainly on where people will move from, not enough about where it would make most sense for them to move to.
Many comments below (->above?) about housing. But it seems to me, the problem in much of Europe is that many old people hang on to large half-empty family houses, so over 65s are occupying a lot more space than under 15s (although the latter have more energy, need space to play …). It’s a pity they blame immigrants for this.
Humans and our cultural diversity are part of biodiversity which makes life beautiful, it’s about balance. A longterm goal should be to save more space for other species, but we need educated young people to keep knowledge and tackle the legacy of the mess (among much else) left by their ancestors.
Because at least you are thinking about such problems (unlike too many). I thought similarly back in 1998, many records broken since, we’re still here, now glad my children are too and getting educated, to help society get through this. By the way the original post is from Ireland which may not get so much warmer (depends thermohaline circulation…) - maybe stormier, although much (not all) of europe will still be nice to live in 2050, adaptation may include many people relocating.
It’s not passing such a milestone that’s an issue, so much as how fast we pass it - i.e. a population decline is sustainable if gradual. My concern is that our models of economics and governance derive from previous centuries when population was rapidly growing, which helped provide social mobility and influence for younger generations. So we need to adjust economics and governance to compensate, to avoid stagnation and gerontocracy.
I recall a presentation by a key guy in China’s planning system (NDRC-ERI) - it was clear that their plan all along was for the peak construction to coincide with the peak working-age population - which is why they would never concede to reduce emissions earlier. They had a long-term view including demographics (more than most governments consider), but the process got its own momentum and became the bubble - also related to city-government financing incentives as well as risky tycoons. Now the problem with such over-planning is that the next generation may not thank them for the legacy of this type of construction (and CO2), and prefer to live in smaller houses or away from the coast (as Shanghai, Tianjin, etc. will be flooded due to same CO2), hence as you say even more reconstruction (and more CO2). But the peak has passed, what really matters next is whether India will repeat similar mistakes.
I’ve traveled outside city centres, but neither to commuter towns nor beach resorts, so I’ll believe you and get there is systemic imbalance.
I have lived six months in China, and literally cried when I cycled around new developments and saw the width of the concrete they were laying for roads.
That was Shandong - quite similar landscape and climate to Portugal.
Their planning is not all crazy, they also preserved some city centres, build metros, and maybe those roads allow potential space for trams or bicycles, but now it’s mostly many lanes of cars, lost the human-scale markets, and I doubt most tower blocks are energy-efficient (anybody know?).
Some people like ‘modern’ concrete lifestyle, the problem is the scale of such construction, and no choice of alternative styles of development (in cities like Glasgow where such construction was a fashion decades ago, now they are demolishing towers due to social failures).
Also, many graduates in China have poor job or housing security, there has also been mass over-production of degrees.
(p.s. now I’m in northern europe in a 1930s house, it’s very cold in winter as can’t afford good heating, even with PhD, will get out woolly hats and electric jacket to keep coding at computer … but at least every house is different here, scope to adapt).
This is important, not least because making the cement and steel for these surplus apartments and associated road infrastructure makes an enormous contribution to global CO2 emissions. Look at how the emissions took off after 2005. So the sooner the bubble bursts, the better for the climate.
Portugal has preserved beautiful human-scale cities and villages, while most apartments in China are in concrete jungles of tower blocks - you really want to swap one for the other? Sure, solutions are needed, but not like that. Also the chinese housing bubble conned many ordinary people to invest multi-family life-savings, it’s not a 1% thing.
每个人，无论是西方人，南方人， 北方人， 还是东方人， 都应该学习多种语言，不那么困难，n’est-ce pas ?
This over-construction bubble has to pop, preferably sooner than later, as chinese cement and steel production contributes a mega share of global greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, pity for individuals who paid up-front for unfinished appartments, hope they find a way to coordinate.
This is an unprecedented situation - if a guy who’s in prison (speaking via AI) and whose party is not allowed on electoral lists can nevertheless win an election , think which other countries might also be inspired by this … ! (note - although I’m not so keen on Khan (populist), am even less keen on military rule). I suppose now it depends which way PPP and MQM will turn ?