Friday, December 18, 2009

Filmmaker Takes on Plight of 'Climate Refugees' at Copenhagen - Michael Nash, director

Filmmaker Takes on Plight of 'Climate Refugees' at Copenhagen

Millions Already Fleeing Climate Change -- and It's Likely to Get Worse


NAIROBI, Kenya, Dec. 13, 2009

The United Nations estimates that there are currently about 25 million "climate refugees," people who have had to move from their homeland because of lack of natural resources. The number is greater than both political and religious refugees in the world. Most are in poor, environmentally vulnerable areas, and the number is expected to grow in the next decade by tens of millions.

There are currently about 25 million "climate refugees," people who have had to move from their homeland because of lack of natural resources.
(Getty Images)As developed and developing nations try and work out a climate deal in Copenhagen, award-winning filmmaker Michael Nash will be screening his new documentary film, "Climate Refugees", a project that took him and his film crew around the world for nearly three years documenting the plight of the people who have been forced to migrate, and giving a haunting picture of the future.

They also talked to scientists, aids groups and politicians from both spectrums of the aisle, including Sen John Kerry, D-Mass., and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. "Climate Refugees" will premiere at next year's Sundance Film Festival.

ABC News asked Nash about the film, the journey and what he hopes people will learn about what he said could be "the greatest challenge mankind's ever going to face."

Napping With the Walruses on Arctic IceWATCH: WEBCAST: Nature's Edge: Island Nations' PleaWATCH: Global Warming Controversy Heats UpWhat is a climate refugee?

A climate refugee is basically someone who is forced to leave their land because they really can no longer survive there, and is forced to move somewhere else.

Climate change, when you really look at it, seems to be really all about water, too much water or too little water. Africa as a continent is a great example of that. There's a lot of parts of Africa that are going through massive droughts right now. They can't grow food. They can't really supply crops for the people who are there. And then you have places like Mozambique, where you have these massive floods. And that's what's happening all over the world that we saw. It's all about water.

What's the basic concept behind your film "Climate Refugees"?

The film really is about the human face of climate change and how the intersection of overpopulation, overconsumption, lack of resources and a changing climate are all colliding now within civilization -- and what's happening is climatic migration. ...

It's interesting because there's a lot of places. ... We travelled around the world for two-and-a-half years documenting the human migration caused by climatic change, and it's a really interesting thing no one's really looking at. People have always kind of migrated, but there's no more available real estate. And now they're crossing borders, which is starting to create conflicts.


Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.

Add Yours

View: First to Last

I find it comical that those who have not seen this film speak with the credibility as if they have, much like those who haven't read the peer reviewed science on the subject speak as if they have. I saw the film when it screened in the Capitol Building in DC. It is the first film on climate change that takes a bi-partisan approach. If fact, at the core of the film is an over consuming, over populated world with limited resources and a changing climate all colliding with each other. The film states that whether man is causing it or we just happen to be in a climatic cycle, the fact is it's happening, and millions and millions of people are being forced to cross borders.

Posted by:

FrankTC12 Dec-17 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 24

Don't forget scenario #5 - not caused by man, man can not significantly impact it, yet countries funnel billions of $$ into the financial black hole while millions die of starvation, poor water conditions and other natural disasters, etc. This scenario would be tragically irresponsible and at least partially preventable.

Posted by:

DCETim Dec-14 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 23

GLOBAL WARMING...Scenario 1: Caused by man+ changes are made = result is, we live in a better world.Scenario 2: Not caused by man+ changes are made = result is, we live in a better world.Scenario 3: Caused by man+ no changes are made = we lose our world.Scenario 4: Not caused by man+ no changes are made= we lose our world.I would like to think everyone would want to work together for the results of either scenario 1 or 2. Even if GW is 'not caused by man', we should be working toward the results that support a better world for us and our future generations to live in. Better air quality, better water quality, better food quality, overall harmony with our environment. Take a trip to China and witness the infancy of pollution there, in another 10-20 years they will experience a major revolution regarding the destruction of environmental and human health of their region.

Posted by:

Manpollo_Project Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 22

The man-made climate change remains one of history's greatest hoax'. As the evidence unfolds, the bum data, the curious computer codes, the denial of academic review, the the cosmetic results begin to emerge, the onion is peeling. I especially observe the lack of academic challenge and review....when we were in college, we reveled in the critical review of our work to prove its strength.....these guys seem to do othewise...yours is the the issue to consider...anyways, I would not say that theirs is the fruitcake of "junk science" since it does injustice to junk.....theirs is QUACK SCIENCE! no more, no less.......!!!

Posted by:

Freddie-6 Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 21

Daha, actually China is the greatest polluter of the earth. Not only are they severely overpopulated they have to feed these masses and if you've ever watched a documentary on China and fishing you will see that they are a nation of "get as much as you can and nevermind the consequences." Sure they will eat every portion of this fish but the problem isn't whether or not they eat the entire fish in various dishes but rather the amount of fish needed to feed this nation. America comes in at second and rightfully so. Much can be said about alternative fuels and cars that run on them. We've had this technology for decades and when provided with this technology it was destroyed. We have to realize that many of the rich and powerful have stock and interest in oil, what do you suppose would be the result of a car running on dog kibble? Money and power will trump our standing on this earth everytime. If you follow just one product, even a small product, from the time it's first being produced to the shelf in the store you will see the amount of pollution created by just this one product either in the air, water, or soil and mostly all three. America is a land of capitalists, materialistic, egotystical, and enviromentally retarded souls who now want to be saved by the latest "scare" put out by "experts" when we don't even know all the animals in the forest, fish in the sea, birds in the air, plants in the forest.....suddenly we know the earth and why.

Posted by:

hickoryone Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 20

"Climate Refugees"....hmmm, is that what we are now calling Mexicans who travel illegal to this country? Seriously though, man throughout his existance has travelled to other lands for food and water. Much like elephants or Zebra travelling the reaches of Africa in search of water and food. We are no different. What is different now is that we are essentially the "youngsters" of this planet. The ice age, volcanos, and other changes the earth went through naturally were all done when we weren't really here yet although Science will say we were but not in large numbers; either way, we are here during another of earth's changes and we who don't look to the obvious sometimes in Science are attempting to call it something else and blame something. Global Warming is just that; another of earth's changes, but why the change only this planet knows why. I am not saying we haven't been totally unkind to this planet, we have; man is the only animal that will pollute it's own air, water, and soil, the only beast that will enslave other animals for money or kill more than he needs to live. Man is the only animal that cannot comprehend what it truly means to live in harmony with all that surrounds him because afterall the payoff not immediate like man likes but absolutely necessary for survival of not only the animals and plants but man as well. Rather than get hysterical or fall for the politics and money making venture that Global warming is, I will sit back and allow the earth to complete it's change with the realization that if man no longer can reside here, so be it.

Posted by:

hickoryone Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 19

Global warming is a scam! And cigarette smoke is beneficial to your health. When business doesn't like the science, it comes up with it's own =)

Posted by:

Balderquell Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 18

Yes, global warming trends can and seem to be verifiable. However, the cause of this warming is not yet clear. If it is indeed the result of people, industry, fossil fuels, then we have a responsibility to curtail this impact. If it is caused by other factors, such as activity of the Sun, then we are diverting tremendous amounts of resources away from other needed areas such as starvation and other human sufferings around the globe. Can our sciences clearly substantiate the source of the warming trend then act, rather than a ready, shoot, aim process?

Posted by:

DCETim Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 17

More Global Warming Alarmism from ABC.Global Warming is proceeding at about 0.1 Degrees C per decade. RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!!There have always been climate refugees, the dust bowl of the 30s, the flight from Greenland during the little ice age, the list is endless. The question is, of the total warming which is already very small, how much of that is caused by man? The fact that warming was faster from 1910 to 1940 (before CO2 increased) and two years ago before they fudged the data, the US GISS listed the hottest years to date as 1934 followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931 should send the theory of man-made CO2 as the main climate driver back to the drawing board.ABC, it's time for climate realism to reemerge.

Posted by:

abc41111 Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 15

More liberal advocacy journalism through scare stories! Evidence exists that a millennium or two back, before SUV's, the Sahara desert was a lush savannah, so what? It changed, people adapted and moved on. The way MSM journalists UNCRITICALLY except and pass on this pablum is a great example of why science should be better taught in schools. If there is a problem with the whole subject, it's that there are too many people populating the globe and too few resources.

Posted by:

AtlasRan Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 13

Posted by:jlibertas 8:54 AM ............................................ You cannot deny the globe is getting warmer at a relatively fast pace.

Posted by:

spazoli is still da man Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 12

This was an interesting article, but it also has a number of contradictions. One contradiction concerns the strategy and logistics of trying to stop climate change and maintain the earth as it is now versus trying to adapt to the changes by building levees, moving inland, and so on. Another contradiction is between the US, which is the most massive polluter on the planet, that does not want to really do anything, but wants other nations to clean up their act.At the end, the comment by Kerry and others was puzzling. They said that unless the US cleaned up its act, wars would be fought, but no one said explicitly what sort or wars or why they would be fought. Are we talking about wars to prevent the migration of refugees into the country? Wars to steal the last remaining resources from weaker and poorer countries? What's the US going to do--kill of as many people as it can around the world so it can maintain the lifestyle of its grossly obese population?

Posted by:

dayahkaa Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 11

Global Warming-IS- Human / Industrial Waste! The best indisputable SCIENCE example that should be the #1 item on the Copenhagen Agenda would be the toxic waste dump, the size of Texas, 900 miles off of the United States and Canadian West Coast. is a Big SCIENCE problem with no dedicated U.S SCIENCE and INNOVATION DEPARTMENT to address the issue. The U.S (or Canada) has not even sent out a SCIENCE research vessel to evaluate this ecological disaster; neither country wants to take the responsibility for the industrial/human pollution or even acknowledge its existence. No Profit-No Action!-No SCIENCE! Will the World Trade Organization and the New Industrial World Order address the issue? Where is their World SCIENCE Department?Can the problem be solved with SCIENCE? Probably so, Americans are very ingenious primarily because we were raised with the compliments of Freedom and Democracy and are free thinking individuals. We could probably figure a way to clean up the mess and possibly make a profit doing so. We can do nothing until we have a DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE that is free to address SCIENCE and to develop the advancement of SCIENCE. (Yes, for the sake of humanity; SCIENCE FIRST-PANDERING SECOND.)

Posted by:

1windcatcher Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 10

kwgage-- This entire farce is starting to sound like Bastiat's famous 'Petition from the Candlemakers', whereby the case is made that in order to avoid "ruinous foreign intervention" of the Sun in the free market, a law must be passed to prohibit the access to natural daylight, thus encouraging competitive industries to grow and prosper. It was intended as satire, but today's politicians (and some climate experts) seem to consider it serious historical precedence, by claiming Man himself must be regulated in the amount of exhaling he is allowed to do. Life, it seems, truly does imitate art.

Posted by:

peacethruignorance Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 9

I can just hear it now: "An Obama conspiracy to force people to move, free healthcare, receive welfare," said Conservatives. "Obama, tear down that Statue of Liberty" !!!!!

Posted by:

newz4i Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 8

This whole story is full of BS!

Posted by:

ItsTheEconomyStupid1 Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 7

By the massive amount of spin the media has given the controversy surrounding the leaked (not "stolen" or "hacked") emails and code data, one would assume that there is "nothing to see here", and have us move along quietly towards a single powerful world government. One which would determine which countries would be allowed to develop, and which would not. In their own words, they want to "level the playing field" among all nations, which means to curtail and reverse industrial activity among the first world nations, while forestalling it indefinately among the third world. This would be combined with Draconian population reduction schemes along the lines of China's single child policy, mandatory sterilization of 'less desireables', and forced abortions. I wish I were making this stuff up, but it comes directly from Obama's science tsar John Holdren, and his book Ecoscience. It also figures prominently in another nefarious tome, Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf'. So yeah, this is kind of important. Our world leaders are now in Copenhagen deciding how to pull this off, and they are not about to let a few thousand emails showing collusion, conflict of interest and lies stand in the way.

Posted by:

peacethruignorance Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 6

Iouwho ~ all good points. And to add to them, the reality that there have always been climatic shifts impacting groups of people. Some of these people have adapted, some have moved, and some have eventually died. I agree, this is tragic and we are sympathetic, but it is not a new phenomenon and it is still not any where near conclusive that human are the culprit of global warming or climatic shifts. Evidence indicates there have been such shifts long before fossil fuels or industry.

Posted by:

DCETim Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 5

Looks like pretty sloppy work to me. He makes his case as if global warming is the cause of the migration as if it were fact. Does he discuss Population growth in these regiions as a cause of depletion of resources?? No. Does he discuss UN or other humanitarian assistance to the regoins in years past allowing populaitons to grow beyond thier resources??? No. Does he discuss the possibility that loss of human habitat (Alaska and Louisiana) may be a naturally ocrring phenominon due to our constantly evolving and changing environment? No. While I certainly have a great deal of sympathy for those people who move due to climate conditions, this kind of mindless drivel based upon emotion and only a portion of the facts is getting old. Sad part is that they are teaching this stuff to our kids in our schools. What ever happened to the Scientific Method????

Posted by:

louwho747 Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 4

Is it funny or maybe a little scarry that our own EPA agency has delcared that I/we are pollutants. I guess they want be able to completely annihilate all of us as long as we own our guns! I can't believe an agency or federal judge having more power than the congress we elect. Our constitution was not set up that way.

Posted by:

kwgage Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 3

jlibertas - As a scientist, you would know how scientists talk, especially in private. And you would be able to see that what these East Anglia scientists were saying, although admittedly inappropriate, probably does not rise to the level of fraud. And even if it did, it is just these particular scientists who we now have evidence against. Your comment about "how can anyone trust any future discoveries or recommendations from any scientists?" indicates that you are more interested in casting doubt on published science rather than moving it forward. On blogs, we call this "concern trolling." As a scientist, you would know that a subject like climate change is vast and diverse, studied in different ways by independent scientists around the world; and you would know that it would be impossible for scientists to keep up such an obvious conspiracy on such a vast scale. As a scientist, you would know that these people were talking mostly about the recent observed temperatures, which have very little to say about the question of whether greenhouse gasses would increase the greenhouse effect over longer time scales.

Posted by:

Jock59801 Dec-13 Mark As Violation

Admin Link: 2

interesting how the hoax continues in spite of ClimateGate. Being a scientist myself, we never assume we have reached the final answer with any problem or question, you always question your results, tweak it. none of that is going on here, no question, no divulging of data, dismissal of any dissent, any contrary evidence. this is troubling to science itself- in this case, its clearly been politicized. how can anyone trust any future discoveries or recommendations from any scientists? it's like what happened to the credibility of '60 minutes' after they were shown to have a political agenda when pursuing george w bush's natl guard duty- led to dan rather's firing

Posted by:

jlibertas Dec-13 Mark As Violation

No comments: