Prevention is Better than Cure
6 years, 14 days, 22 hours
7 July 2023
A few weeks ago The Economist published this article on the subject of the migratory consequences of climate change.
The Economist’s case is a combination of:
a) the numbers who will be forced to move is not unmanageable. They like the World Bank’s Groundswell forecasts that have a low estimate of 44 million persons displaced, and an upper estimate of 216 million, and put that in the context of an estimated 100 million people displaced today.
b) that most of those who move will end up better off, by moving from rural areas to cities, where they will likely earn more, have better healthcare and education, and choose to have less children.
c) that this will happen over 100 years, will mostly be quite localised within countries, because those forced to move will not have the resources to move very far, and the usual resilience of humanity will therefore cope with it.
A colleague argued to me a few months ago that adaptation and movement of humanity was just part of our evolution. To try to defend the world exactly as it is inhabited today is not logical, desirable or affordable. I agree with that.
Where I am less comfortable is that by playing down (again) the risks of climate change, The Economist encourages us all to relax and assume it will be fine. The World Bank estimates may well be accurate, but it is almost certain they cannot be too high, whilst there is plenty of scope for them to be too low. Honestly today no-one knows for sure. Assuming most of the migration takes place within countries seems to me doubtful. Inequalities across the world are growing, visibility of those inequalities are greater than ever, yet the desire of people to move for reasons economic or safety are increasingly being rebuffed by the closing of borders. Each year it feels we are more connected, yet more compartmentalised.
And yes cities generally offer better and more of everything. But at a price. If cities are to absorb a growing proportion of the population (from around half today to two-thirds by 2050) then huge investment is needed in expanding their transport, energy, water, housing, education and healthcare. That is still probably more cost effective than implementing climate resilience solutions to protect disaggregated pockets of rural communities, and huge swathes of low-lying coastal areas. But more cost-effective than either would be to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions, to trajectories much bolder than we are facing today. To switch to a healthcare analogy, better to spend on prevention than cure.