Birds
have got the right idea. Once that wicked winter wind blows, they
hightail it for southern climes, where I imagine them sipping pina
coladas poolside at a swanky resort, chuckling at we grounded humans.
“Silly animals,” they squawk, “with their fuzzy boots and parkas! Toss
your drinks back, fellow flyers, it’s time to limbo!”
If
it were easier for people to migrate, we’d be doing it all the time.
Sure, there are the “snowbirds,” those lucky ducks who spent part
of the year where blizzards are just a theoretical concept. That
requires money and planning, though. We can’t just take off whenever we
want to, because not only can’t we fly, but we’re grounded in other ways
-- we need homes and supermarkets and convenient
access to socks. We’re mired in our homo sapien ways.
But there’s a chance that migration may become a necessity.
I’m
talking permanent migration
here, the kind that could very well be heralded by climate change. At
this point,
the reality of a changing climate should be taken as an absolute, and
the human role in it regarded with nearly as much certainty. The steep
and sudden climb in global temperatures corresponds exactly with the
beginning of the industrial revolution, and the
greenhouse gases we’ve pumped into the atmosphere since that time tally
perfectly with the particulants measured in today’s carbonous,
throat-clogging air. The few remaining deniers have no credible case
left. That leaves two questions for us to ponder.
One: What do we do about it?
Two: What happens when we inevitably do nothing?
Because
let’s face it -- we’ll probably do nothing, or at least nothing that
helps. The world’s largest economies, the United States and
China, have a financial interest in preserving the status quo;
investments in renewable energy may ultimately keep the planet habitable
for human life, but it hurts various industries’ bottom lines in the
short term, and basic survival has historically taken
a back seat to quarterly fiscal reports. This has already had an impact
on habitation, as islanders living near the broiling equator have seen
their communities flooded by rising sea levels. They’re fleeing for
higher, cooler ground, and in about 200 years
they may find what they’re looking for in places like Siberia and
northern Canada. Ever get a vacation postcard from the Northwest
Territories? Your great-great-grandchildren might.
The goal here, however, isn’t to shame. It’s to consider the possible consequences.
There
are the societal ramifications, obviously. Let’s say the worst-case
scenario develops and the equator becomes totally uninhabitable,
a celestial waistband of brown grass and empty McDonald’s parking lots.
That means a whole lot of people moving out of Brazil and Thailand and
pitching their tents in locales such as Norway and Russia; by 2216
they’ll be resort countries shaded by palm fronds
and crawling with sunburnt poolside attendants named Chip. This is
significant, because a ridiculous number of people live in these
equatorial countries, and if the climate forces them to leave, they’ll
be competing with the natives of cooler spots for space
and resources. Overpopulation is already a huge problem, and its
effects will only be compounded if there’s less livable land area on the
planet.
Besides
that, the effects on local culture could potentially be unsettling.
Some nations are accepting of disparate cultures. Some aren’t.
Given the current kerfuffle over immigration policy, our own United
States seems to qualify as a culturally intolerant country -- our love
for spicy tacos and Kung Pao chicken notwithstanding. It’s ironic, given
America’s status as a patchwork quilt of heritage,
that there’s such a deep resistance to outside influence and ideas. But
it exists, and it’s prevalent in states like Maine, which are
historically isolationist by nature. I mean hell, Mainers consider even
transplants from neighboring New Hampshire to be “from
away.” It’s hard to fathom the number of heads that would explode if
the state is overrun by refugees from Columbia, seeking cooler breezes
and delicious whoopie pies.
While
that’s a lot to consider, the dramatic facelift to the world economy is
the dark star on top of this ugliest of Christmas trees. I’m
not an economist, but I play one in a column, and I’m guessing it can’t
be healthy in the short run to see northern countries’ populations
triple while places like Venezuela are left as empty as a Quizno’s.
Since
we’re so close to Canada, let’s prognosticate a hypothetical future
scenario for our syrup-loving neighbors. In a possible 2216, oranges
grow in Toronto. Hundreds of thousands of ex-Argentinians crowd the
cigar shops and red-light hovels of Montreal, their flesh erupting in
goosebumps as air conditioning cools their bodies. Denizens of Vancouver
get up early to start their cars, hoping for
a less-than-sweltering commute to work. And with soil now suited to
diverse agriculture, Canada becomes one of the world’s breadbaskets,
producing food for the few people left in the simmering sun of a
once-great civilization. The 12 people still living in
Georgia drink orange juice made in Edmonton. The world is topsy-turvy,
the switch too sudden, and even the countries with huge population booms
are buckling under the weight of massive change. And somehow, Pauly
Shore is making movies again. Bedlam.
There
are those who would scoff, dismiss my climate worry as overblown and
call me an “alarmist.” To which I would respond: Of course I am!
It’s an alarming situation. Who in their right mind wouldn’t be?
No comments:
Post a Comment