Ditto the 10 million migrant number. Australia has 7 million migrants living here right now; 10 million globally spread over many years is not particularly devastating.
Climate change is supposed to be a threat significant enough for people to abandon their way of life, not those so-so numbers.
While I personally agree with you, the UK (news and opinion polls) regularly regard ten thousand on that island (1/10th of a fair share of 10 million worldwide) as an existential threat. Most recently, the addition of half a dozen bailing out a rubber dinghy with Tupperware are seen as so dangerous that the Royal Navy is considered an appropriate response by a majority.
People more frequently oppose the former.
And with climate changes accelerating and yielding areas around the equator uninhabitable, I don't believe it'll stop at 10 million. Not to mention, some parts of EU itself are close to equator.
The politics of the situation would be brutal; but the UK has a pretty reasonable tolerance for migrants. Strategically the numbers in the article are not a global threat.
Edit reply: Yes, it has. This macronutrient myth has to do with the profile of carbs to proteins shifting by single digit percentages, whereas crops will produce more carbs per gram and less protein per gram under higher CO2. The effect is extremely minimal. In soy beans, it's just 2% difference. Either way, when your yields double and you lose 2-10% protein per gram, you are still producing more food overall. This has nothing to do with GMOs. It's just a natural effect of photosynthesis. Most plants are C3 plants, which means genetically they are optimized for CO2 levels that are at least 3x higher than modern levels. It is theorized that this is because plants evolved under these conditions for millions of years. Only very recently in geological terms, did Earth's CO2 levels drop to sub-1000 ppm.
For climate change to be taken seriously, one needs to find the lever which will move the powerful actors. For example, leaving oceanfront homes' insurance to market forces. Swing states of Florida and North Carolina will instantly propel this to a big political issue, leaving the party of Free Markets and Climate Change Denial (TM) in an awkward position.
Sadly, the politicians on all sides are way too smart to let this happen - they will instead prefer driving issues which sap electorate's attention but affect <5% of the population (transgender bathroom access, extreme cases of the spectrum of abortion issue, marginal tax rate on 0.1% of people etc).
Wikipedia has a good article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_and_agriculture
One thing to consider when you're reading anything about the predicted effects of climate change: The effects will not be uniform in space or time.
For example, warming itself has been highly nonuniform. It's not that every day, every location on earth is X degrees warmer. Rather, that's an average; some days in some places are a lot hotter, and on other days in other places, it's less hot. This means that in addition to the average temperature increasing, extremes are also more common (has to be).
See the first picture at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming, or this video: https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/video-global-...
I expect that "10% decrease in average [time and space] grain yields" would also be spiky, in time and space. That means some places and times will experience significantly more than a 10% drop.
What is happening is this:
For a location and a time somewhere on earth plot a curve depicting the probability of it's temperature. The highest point in the middle is the average, typical temperature for that day, but of course there are less probable outliers left and right, like in a normal distribution.
What climate change does is
a) it flattens that curve, meaning more varying temperatures, unusually hot or unusually cold days, become more likely and
b) it moves that entire curve to the right, so that the average overall temperature becomes hotter, even though there are more cold outlier-days than before.
1. It's warming.
2. It's not us.
3. We're sure.
4. It's bad.
5. We can fix it.
It would be incorrect, the evidence is clear that it is a man made problem. This has nothing to do with the morality or lack of, that's your projection.
This isn't how you do hypotheticals. If, in the hypothetical world, it isn't us, the claim that it isn't us is correct, not incorrect by virtue of disagreeing with the non-hypothetical world.
And you didn't even address my point that this bullet point is completely irrelevant to what's happening and to what should be done. All the recommendations are identical in either case. Why is the bullet point present in the list? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a four-item list?
Question is whether this helps the debate or not. It could help.
1. It's causing disease.
2. It's not us.
3. We're sure.
4. It's bad.
5. We can fix it.
Just the other day I read a long and detailed article about a predicted number of 200 million "climate migrants" by 2050, 86 million from Africa alone.
Nowhere in the long article was ever mentioned that in the same timespan Africa's population is predicted to double, adding 1.2 billion people to the current number. But of course, hey, "climate change".
[0] https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/infographic/2018/03/19/gro...
I might or even probably would have happened anyway but climate change probably accelerated it.
Noo, it's climate change. Imagine what would happen in your country if any group of rebels or terrorists where given weapons and training for several billions to take down the government.