Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician
This idea of global warming and available freshwater fulfilling Chicagoans’ fantasy of people bolting en masse from the coasts (which are now under water!) and the South to the shores of Lake Michigan, whereby Chicago asserts its destiny of being the supercity of the Western Hemisphere is.........like.........never gonna happen.
|
This is a strawman, as nobody is suggesting what you claim. The real question is:
Does climate change have the chance to impact migration patterns within the United States of America? Based on historical examples (Dustbowl, potato famine, etc.) it seems highly possible over a multi-decade timeframe.
Which leads us to the question of whether Chicago stands to benefit from that migration. Who knows? We have fresh water, reasonable cost of living, and jobs. We also have extreme cold in winter, high levels of violence, and stagnant population growth. Pure numbers would suggest that Chicago would benefit, but I don't see anyone expecting 500,000 new citizens like the Great Migrations brought us.
Dustbowl reference:
Quote:
|
Roughly 2.5 million people left the Dust Bowl states—Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma—during the 1930s. It was one of the largest migrations in American history. Oklahoma alone lost 440,000 people to migration. ... From 1935 to 1940, roughly 250,000 Oklahoma migrants moved to California.
|
Threaded Mode