Number of displaced people hits record due to war, climate change | Hacker News Reader

Number of displaced people hits record due to war, climate change

reuters.com

34 pointssimmerup46 comments

Open articleView on HN

“linked to climate change”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods

Are we linking every weather event to climate change?

Can we tighten up our science a little?

Somewhere I read that the Pakistan issue was not related to climate change and more to do with where the people lived.

More people are living in flood zones, for example.

If you look at the insane rise in global sea surface temperatures lately I don’t think we can just fall back to this old assertion.

Weather isn’t climate, this is true, but it’s going to be pretty difficult to find weather that isn’t affected but such a rapid change in the climate.

In other words, all weather is now weather like we’ve never seen before because we’ve drifted so far from the mean.

We’ve barely drifted from the mean. Most design codes have only increased storm loading by ~5% for climate change and that is conservative.

The parent is right, most increases in storm damage rates are because humans are building more stuff where storms are, changes due to climate change are negligible in comparison.

The wiki explains it in the first paragraph - flood liked to heavier monsoons and melting glaciers resulting from climate change.

Edit: Removed some phrasing

Why do you think people choose to live in places that get flooded?

Pakistan's population is a bit over 230 million now (or maybe even 240 million). It was around 45 million in 1960 (not including Bangladesh). It was around 23 million in 1900 (not including the rest of British India).

The numbers vary a bit depending on source but the overall trend is unmistakable.

This increase is not due to "Climate Change" but to increases in public health (cleaner water, better sewers/latrines, soap, plumbing=easier hand washing, cleaner food, vaccinations) and available food (many, many more calories + vitamins).

If the Pakistanis choose to spend that wealth increase on a population growth instead of increase in personal wealth, well, that is not our fault. Perhaps they made the right choice, perhaps not. It's up to them.

---

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2326-4624.....

Edit: minor copy editing to tighten up the language.

Sorry, not to be snarky, here is the "Background" part of the wiki article : "The minister of climate change of Pakistan, Sherry Rehman, said that the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan had received more rainfall than the August average, with 784% and 500% more, respectively.[9][10] Higher than average monsoon rains were also recorded in India and Bangladesh.[11] The Indian Ocean is one of the fastest warming oceans in the world, warming by an average of 1 °C (1.8 °F) (while worldwide temperatures are now at 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) above pre-industrial temperatures, oceans in general are at around 0.7 °C (1.3 °F)).[11] The rise in sea surface temperatures is believed to increase monsoon rainfall.[12][11] In addition, southern Pakistan experienced back-to-back heat waves in May and June, which were record-setting and themselves made more likely by climate change.[13][14] These created a strong thermal low that brought heavier rains than usual.[12][13] The heatwaves also triggered glacial flooding in Gilgit-Baltistan.[14]

Pakistan contributes less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but is one of the places most vulnerable to climate change.[15][16] A study by an international team of climate scientists says that global heating made the flooding up to 50% worse and future floods more likely.[17] However, some of the contributors to the severity of the flooding are local to the country. Deforestation in Pakistan has also been a factor worsening the floods"

So much larger than usual rainfall is the problem - they had record flooding - meaning bigger than ever recorded, right?

I don't understand why you are talking about public health like that had an impact in the amount of water that was covering more land than ever?

> I don't understand why you are talking about public health like that had an impact in the amount of water that was covering more land than ever?

Why do people live where they do? Surely you understand that that is relevant?

It not relevant to the comment we're replying to, which is arguing that this problem is not related to climate change and quoted this wikipedia article - is it?

Apparently you don't.

Love the snark - keep not being on topic brother

And, in recent times, we also need to account for the effect of the COVID lockdowns. A lot of wealthy countries decided to seriously damage the global economy - it isn't a stretch to think that might have effected the number of displaced people. There were certainly some discussions of high potential for famines during COVID that seemed linked to the sudden shutdown of trade.

Frankly, I think it could probably have cause a couple of the wars too. It seems a bit suspicious that on the one side of COVID the world was more or less peaceful and then on the other side we're seeing what seems to be an escalation [0] up to WWIII. Before COVID people were complaining that the US executive was too chummy with Russia. That is just one example, but there are a lot of suddenly tense areas and I think the economic stresses from the general lockdowns are serious contributors.

[0] I see the UK is now giving Ukraine cruise missiles - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/12/russia-denies-ukrai....

> It seems a bit suspicious that on the one side of COVID the world was more or less peaceful and then on the other side we're seeing what seems to be an escalation [0] up to WWIII.

Giving a country the weapons it needs to defend itself is not escalatory, whats escalatory is invading a country and trying eradicate its population. If Russia cares so much about escalation they should leave Ukraine.

That flood created an inland sea that could be seen from space. And you think the reason is because people were in the vicinity of a river? It was one of the costliest and deadliest floods ever.

> In addition, southern Pakistan experienced back-to-back heat waves in May and June, which were record-setting and themselves made more likely by climate change.[13][14] These created a strong thermal low that brought heavier rains than usual.[12][13] The heatwaves also triggered glacial flooding in Gilgit-Baltistan.[14]

I can't believe your comment is up top. How is climate change in this instance not the main cause?

Science requires that you supply the facts not make up a story and say “what else can it be”

What will it take to purge this sort of ignorance from HN?

https://theconversation.com/pakistan-floods-what-role-did-cl...

Your comment makes it seem like you're commenting on the article, but you're not. I'll admit to being rather confused as to why a top level comment has nothing to do with the article at all.

I think article is a good example that current events and world news is basically bad for you.

What can we say about this article?

- it’s alarming, particularly if you already happened to hold the view that it’s all going to hell

- it’s not actionable, there’s nothing you can or should do differently as a result of this article

- it’s probably not even meaningful, the world is a random event generator and the worse event or piece of news on any given day is terrible! But that says nothing about how things actually are

The last point bears repeating. If you read a news article and update your understanding of the world to think “X is more common than I thought” after reading an article on X - you often end up less informed than if you hadn’t read the article at all. Replace X for any rare event that occurs in the news. The availability of the news on a thing is not the rate of the thing happening.

Defeatism at its worst. What better way to not have to fix a problem than to choose to be unaware of it?

The articles that make you uncomfortable first inform you. Then you think. Then you make personal choices to reduce pollution, pick sustainable ways of living and transportation etc. You talk to your relatives and friends about it to spread awareness. If you live in a democracy, effect policy change through your representatives. Etc etc.

There is no way any individual action will affect climate change.

Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it

Taking the subway or not flying often or not eating mear won't change much if anything at all, its just virtue signaling.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-empty-gestur...

> Advocating for the shutting down of oil and gas is the most effective way to combat it

Which requires advocating for nuclear power, of course.

It's rather strange that the most ardent Climate Crusaders are against nuclear power, too.

Absolutely. Nuclear is one of the cleanest sources of energy, if we are talking lots and lots of energy.

Advocacy for nuclear power would have made sense back in the '80s and '90s, but it's too late now; renewables cost half as much and come on line ten times faster. The ROI just isn't there for nuclear.

Wind/solar are always wind/solar + something else. That something else is usually pipelined gas.

That's true, but I am talking about the economic problem: who is going to spend $30 billion on a decade-long project to build a nuclear plant, when the same money could buy twice as many megawatts' worth of renewables and start returning on the investment in a year?

Of course it would be a good thing for us all if someone would replace all those gas plants with nuclear, but it's hard to see why anyone who had the money to do that would choose to spend it that way.

If our safety requirements for wind and solar were as onerous as they are for nuclear power, then the economic equation would be completely flipped around.

(Plus we currently don't have the wind/solar providers pay for the gas plants -- and the costs of ensuring a constant supply of gas. That cost is currently measured in leopard tanks and stinger missiles... and in Ukrainian soldiers but that's an externality we are not paying for.)

How do we change that? Advocate for nuclear power. Tell every nasty little "green" politician that we hate them and their lies.

I don't really want to debate this. I think you chose your wording advocacy instead of just nuclear for a reason.

I would just add every environment is not equally suited to each type of power generation. Each environment needs a different peak load. Batteries can get you through a single peak when sized well, at large expense. We don't want natural gas to be the fallback for renewables universally.

No it doesn’t. Shut down the oil and gas, and let the utilities figure out the cheapest way to get us energy. Choosing which technology to use is their expertise.

Do they currently have the freedom to do that? Not in my country. The anti-nuclear lobby won that battle decades ago... and there is huge government interference in our energy infrastructure.

The Paris Climate Agreements never addresses nuclear in France which last time I checked was around 70% of their energy. Obviously something is very backwards with the setting of these agreements. Everyone knows nuclear is our best option right now except advocates for wind and solar since they lose money. It should be the Paris Nuclear Agreements end of the day...meh.

100%

Reread. It starts with making individual choices, goes to informing others and effecting policy change. Reading uncomfortable articles is prerequisite for this process to even start.

For an example where individual choices eventually cascaded into big changes to human environment see anthropocene.

Even if your whole family switched, it won't matter.

False. It's my family and friends and whoever they in turn talk to about it, and their friends and family. And all of them can also do their part in effecting policy change.

So much misinformation on this topic. It's more comfortable to be complacent.

The number of displaced persons globally is not a random event distribution. There's clearly a trend over a couple of decades at least.

The causes are maybe numerous and arguable but the trend isn't. It seems important as a society to be aware of?

"The number of internally displaced people (IDPs) reached a record 71.1 million worldwide last year due to conflicts such as the war in Ukraine and climate calamities like the monsoon floods in Pakistan, according to data published on Thursday.

The Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) said that figure represented a 20% increase since 2021, with an unprecedented number of people fleeing in search of safety and shelter."

20% increase!! For people talking about how this is statistical manipulation, good luck justifying 20%

This sounds like the old trick of mixing in two buckets into one to make each original bucket appear larger than it actually was.

Said every ancient collapsed civilization.

When does one stop being a displaced person. All 4 of my grandparents were kicked out or had to leave the area their families were living in for generations (after being kicked out of other places). Am I a "displaced person?"

You might be a Jew or a Gypsy.

Your second term is considered a racial slur

Might. Anything might.

However, if you actually talk to them, it isn't. What would you replace it with? Rom or Roma? In that case, you would be mislabeling a lot of them since the Rom are only one of the Gypsy groups (but it is the largest). You would also be pissing off all Romanians who absolutely, positively do not under any circumstances want to be confused with Gypsies.

Would you say "Roma and Sinti"? That's the two largest Gypsy groups (or is it the largest and third-largest?). There are many others.

No, just call them Gypsies.

Are you done virtue signaling?

https://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128696&page=1

Those sure are a lot of justifications for using slurs against marginalised groups

I'd assume that when you settle you stop being displaced? There is - I assume - a moment after having been displaced when you decide to live somewhere else and not come back - at that point you're just a resident, i'd guess.

If everything remains constant but the population keeps growing, the amount of population affected by phenomenon Y will also increase every year.

Most populations geographically are not growing.

But the Pakistani population is growing. The Bangladeshi population is growing.

Pakistani was hit by a big flood that affected lots of people -- not merely because the flood was so big (it really was!), but because there are so many people in Pakistan that many of them have to live in risky places. Bangladesh is regularly hit by floods, which largely affect areas where people didn't use to live, simply because there are so many people in Bangladesh that many of them have to live in risky places.

Bangladesh is also flood prone due to misfortunes of geography (nothing at all to do with climate change or population explosion).

And then there are the local effects of large populations: felling of mangrove forests in Bangladesh, deforestation in general (Pakistan), people living on former meadows, people putting in barriers that prevent minor local "floods" (really just temporary widening of rivers) which lead to major floods, ...

And, yes, there is also climate change => deglaciation, more rainfall, and more extreme weather.

But anybody who tries to downplay the role of population growth in the recent disasters in Pakistan and Bangladesh is lying to you and probably trying to sell you something.

In percentages, the YoY increases in displacement are far greater than population growth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com