What happens to the Tuvaluans when their country sinks?

[matt_mcl]

Here’s a sample news story about the problems faced by the nation ofTuvalu. Scientists fear that the entire territory of the low-lying archipelagic country could be rendered uninhabitable by rising sea-levels.

What are the people of Tuvalu supposed to do, and what ought the rest of the world do to help them? If they move, would they retain their sovereignty? Could territory they would settle on become the new territory of Tuvalu? Or would the state cease to exist along with its former territory? Is there any precedent for an entire country being rendered uninhabitable before?

Assuming that you indeed believe in the anthropogenic climate change theory, as I do, should the government of Tuvalu sue the biggest producer-states of greenhouse gases for their part in this crisis? Should those countries take some responsibility for the fate of Tuvalu and the Tuvaluans?

[tracer]

And more importantly, what will happen to the .tv top-level Internet domain?! It’s so cool! I mean, having a domain name that ends in TV, fer cryin’ out loud! Every television-related business’s dream! We can’t let Tuvalu sink into the ocean!!

[Scylla]

Ahhh, now this is very interesting.

Occam’s razor suggests that before we go blaming greenhouse gases for the erosion of their islands (which I suppose they hypothesize is due to a rising sea level which has not yet been observed,) perhaps we might consider that if you live in a chain of very small islands, and you cart away all your sand for building materials, than your island is going to shrink. Additionally, if you clear cut what forests and growth you have that is also going to help the process of erosion along as well.

From the fact book:

; beachhead erosion because of the use of sand for building
materials; excessive clearance of forest undergrowth for use as fuel; damage to coral reefs from the spread of the Crown of Thorns starfish;

Now Tuvalu may be concerned about the greenhouse gases, but unless they have any actual evidence to suggest that it is a factor in the erosion of their islands, they really don’t have much of an argument, especially considering how much damage and erosion they are creating all by themselves.

You will also notice that Tuvalu sold it’s internet domain “.tv” for 50 million dollars! That comes out to more than $4,500 per citizen!

Perhaps Tuvalu could use this money to high some engineers to help them halt or reverse erosion. Or, they could divide the money up among the tend thousand inhabitants, and let them use it to emigrate or otherwise deal with the problem as they see fit.

Finally, the Polynesians have a long tradittion as a seafaring people.

Let 'em swim.

[Scylla]

On top of all that, Australia has already provided extremely generous aid, and the Tuvaluan got another 35 Million in the bank.

That makes over $8,000 per citizen!

[Dave_Stewart]

Once again the short-sight conservative government in Canberra, more worried about obtaining redneck votes than helping people in need, drops the humanitarian ball.

Australia is the principal power in the south Pacific, and here is showing a distressing lack of decency and empathy towards a neighbour. New Zealand, though, already has a large islander population, and perhaps the Tuvulans will find themselves better accepted there.

In relation to your questions:

What are the people of Tuvalu supposed to do, and what ought the rest of the world do to help them? If they move, would they retain their sovereignty? Could territory they would settle on become the new territory of Tuvalu? Or would the state cease to exist along with its former territory? Is there any precedent for an entire country being rendered uninhabitable before?

Well, I personally think the rest of the world should help, but I doubt it will happen in any sort of hurry. All territories in the world as far as I know are currently under sovereign domain, so I doubt there will be another Tuvalu. I’ve never heard of another entire country being relocated.

Assuming that you indeed believe in the anthropogenic climate change theory, as I do, should the government of Tuvalu sue the biggest producer-states of greenhouse gases for their part in this crisis?

They should give it a shot in the World Court. I doubt they’d be successful - the USA, for example, refuses in spoilsport fashion to recognise judgments in the World Court which go against it, and France refuses to recognise the World Court at all- but there is a chance the Tuvalans might get some reparations from other industrialised nations if they can prove a causal link to greenhouse gas emissions and the rising sea levels around their home (no easy feat, I would think).

[Scylla]

Dave:

Gee, that’s so sad. Nobody wants to help. What about that International Trust Fund that Australia set up that now totals over 35 million. What about the 9 million the US gives these guys every year?

[Dave_Stewart]

Dave:

Gee, that’s so sad. Nobody wants to help. What about that International Trust Fund that Australia set up that now totals over 35 million. What about the 9 million the US gives these guys every year?

LOL. I appreciate your empathy with my righteousness, Scylla.

The Tuvalans have come to us for help (and doesn’t that sound like something out of Star Trek) for a reason. I’m sure that in most countries the amount of money might help build a pretty impressive freeway system.

But think about it. Salt water is coming up through the ground. Are they going to pay for dirt to be shipped in? Will retaining walls stop the rise of water up through the ground? Is reforestation on a large scale seriously going to be something that will work - that is, stop the rise of salt water and allow them to be able to have viable industries?

If a country’s government is looking for a way to relocate its entire population when they’ve been living on their islands forever, then you have to wonder about just how serious the problem is, and whether a band-aid solution of US$10m a year or so is actually going to get very far in the long run.

[Scylla]

Dave:

We’re talking about 10,000 people here. How much money should we spend to solve a problem that is largely their own fault?

Land conservation and erosion are concepts that every farmer understands (I live on a hilly farm, so I know,) If you take away all the sand and make concrete buildings with it, then that shrinks the insulation that sand provides to your groundwater. If you clearcut your land, rain and wind blows it away.

Greenhouses gases may or may not be contributing to the problem.

Really though, the earth has been heating and cooling for millions of years, and we are right now at the tail end of an ice age, so independant of human contributions we should be expecting the earth to heat up and sea levels to rise. This is an ungodly long term event though, and it’s unlikely in the extreme that this is the foundation of their problem.

More likely the corral atolls formed as a result of the last ice age lowering sea levels, so there’s nothing out of the ordinary of the sea rising and taking them back once the ice age ends.

I daresay that this is a country that on a per capita basis is probably receiving more aid than any other country in the whole world. In proportion to their citizenry they have huge amounts of capital.

You will also recall from your history that the English have an excellent history of being able to reclaim land from the sea in their colonies in what are some of the largest and most successful engineering projects of all time. Some of these projects are over 100 years old!

The principles of preserving eroding seafront are rather well understood, and attainable.

The problems are their own making. The world and particularly Australia has done an exceptionally fine job of offering them aid in the past. The Government is measurably wealthy, and they all get to live in the South Pacific islands! What do they have to complain about?

I say whack these people on the head with a stick. Tell them to stop digging up their beaches and cutting down their vegetation, and instead of exploiting their environment and blaming the problems on everybody else, why don’t they spend a little bit of their ample funds and GDP to reponsibly preserve their land?

If they keep whining, let 'em sink.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**Scientists fear that the entire territory of the low-lying archipelagic country could be rendered uninhabitable by rising sea-levels.

**

It could be? How long will it take?

**
What are the people of Tuvalu supposed to do, and what ought the rest of the world do to help them? If they move, would they retain their sovereignty? Could territory they would settle on become the new territory of Tuvalu? Or would the state cease to exist along with its former territory?

**

I would think the state would disappear. First you’d have to find another place that would accent 11,000 Tuvaluans. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that just about any large nation like Australia could accept 11,000 people without much difficulty. But I don’t think you’ll find many nations willing to allow them to set up their own soverign government on their own territory.

**
Is there any precedent for an entire country being rendered uninhabitable before?

**

I don’t know. I wouldn’t think it was far fetched for islands in the south pacific to have become uninhabitable in the past. Geological changes happen.

**
Assuming that you indeed believe in the anthropogenic climate change theory, as I do, should the government of Tuvalu sue the biggest producer-states of greenhouse gases for their part in this crisis? Should those countries take some responsibility for the fate of Tuvalu and the Tuvaluans? **

Well I believe the gasses do contribute but I’m not convinced as to how much they contribute. Who would they sue? The United States would certainly be on the list but what other nations would be included? What kind of settlement would they accept? How many countries will even care what the world court says?

Marc

[Dave_Stewart]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Dave:

We’re talking about 10,000 people here. How much money should we spend to solve a problem that is largely their own fault?

Land conservation and erosion are concepts that every farmer understands (I live on a hilly farm, so I know,) If you take away all the sand and make concrete buildings with it, then that shrinks the insulation that sand provides to your groundwater. If you clearcut your land, rain and wind blows it away.

Greenhouses gases may or may not be contributing to the problem.

Really though, the earth has been heating and cooling for millions of years, and we are right now at the tail end of an ice age, so independant of human contributions we should be expecting the earth to heat up and sea levels to rise. This is an ungodly long term event though, and it’s unlikely in the extreme that this is the foundation of their problem.

More likely the corral atolls formed as a result of the last ice age lowering sea levels, so there’s nothing out of the ordinary of the sea rising and taking them back once the ice age ends.

I daresay that this is a country that on a per capita basis is probably receiving more aid than any other country in the whole world. In proportion to their citizenry they have huge amounts of capital.

You will also recall from your history that the English have an excellent history of being able to reclaim land from the sea in their colonies in what are some of the largest and most successful engineering projects of all time. Some of these projects are over 100 years old!

The principles of preserving eroding seafront are rather well understood, and attainable.

The problems are their own making. The world and particularly Australia has done an exceptionally fine job of offering them aid in the past. The Government is measurably wealthy, and they all get to live in the South Pacific islands! What do they have to complain about?

I say whack these people on the head with a stick. Tell them to stop digging up their beaches and cutting down their vegetation, and instead of exploiting their environment and blaming the problems on everybody else, why don’t they spend a little bit of their ample funds and GDP to reponsibly preserve their land?

If they keep whining, let 'em sink. **

From the CIA Fact book, so we know who we’re talking about:

**Tuvalu consists of a densely populated, scattered group of nine coral atolls with poor soil. The country has no known mineral resources and few exports. Subsistence farming and fishing are the primary economic activities. Government revenues largely come from the sale of stamps and coins and worker remittances. About 1,000 Tuvaluans work in Nauru in the phosphate mining industry. Nauru has begun repatriating Tuvaluans, however, as phosphate resources decline. Substantial income is received annually from an international trust fund established in 1987 by Australia, NZ, and the UK and supported also by Japan and South Korea. Thanks to wise investments and conservative withdrawals, this Fund has grown from an initial $17 million to over $35 million in 1999. The US government is also a major revenue source for Tuvalu, with 1999 payments from a 1988 treaty on fisheries at about $9 million, a total which is expected to rise annually. In an effort to reduce its dependence on foreign aid, the government is pursuing public sector reforms, including privatization of some government functions and personnel cuts of up to 7%. In 1998, Tuvalu began deriving revenue from use of its area code for “900” lines and from the sale of its “.tv” Internet domain name. Royalites from these new technology sources could raise GDP three or more times over the next decade. Low-lying Tuvalu is particularly vulnerable to any rise in the sea level from future global warming…people make a living mainly through exploitation of the sea, reefs, and atolls and from wages sent home by those working abroad (mostly workers in the phosphate industry and sailors) …
**

and from here: http://www2.hawaii.edu/usr-cgi/ssis/~ogden/piir/pacific/tuvalu.html

Tuvalu’s minute size and almost total lack of exploitable resources suggest that most of the population will remain dependent on subsistence activities for the foreseeable future. Tuvalu exports small quantities of copra, sells licenses to foreign ships wishing to fish for tuna in it 200 mile exclusive economic zone, and has a successful philatelic bureau. Otherwise, it must depend on remittances from expatriate Tuvaluans and external aid funds. In an effort to address this issue creatively, the governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom in conjunction with the government of Tuvalu established the Tuvalu Trust Fund in 1987, under which the three donor nations contributed Aust$24.7 million. This money has been placed in portfolio investments, and the net income each year is paid to Tuvalu to help meet its recurrent budget.

So, we’re not talking about an economic powerhouse with greedy heavy industries ruining the environment. The international trust was set up by foreigners in order to not let these people fall off the planet but not constantly fork out money to them, but has been carefully managed by the Tuvalans since then resulting in a substantial growth in the fund. The money from the US looks like it is in return for fishing rights: hardly charity. The government is engaged in privitisation in order to reduce its reliance on overseas charity. Most people make money from subsistence fishing and farming.

These are people in the middle of nowhere who make ends meet by fishing and selling odd stamps. And now, their islands are sinking.

From here:http://www.disasterrelief.org/Disasters/000228Tuvalu/

The Tuvalu motu of Tepuka Savilivili has lost its coconut trees and sandbanks. Burial grounds near the coasts of many Pacific islands are crumbling into the ocean as surf sweeps over battered headstones. Storm surges also seem to have grown more common in recent years, eroding protective barriers, destroying bridges and roads and flooding homes and plantations.

As the sea edges further inland, salty water has seeped into the ground on some of Tuvalu’s islands, contaminating soil where Tuvaluans plant crops such as taro, pulaka and yams. Instead, farmers are forced to grow their crops in tin containers filled with compost. Others have moved further inland or even left the island nation altogether. Meanwhile, Kirabati has had to move roads inland as the Pacific eats away its shore.

High tides often swamp vast portions of Tuvalu, which has a total land area of 26 square kilometers (10 square miles). Most recently, record high tides of 3.2 meters (10.56 feet) submerged much of the country, cutting telephone services for weeks and flooding Tuvalu’s only airport. When strong winds and waves accompany the high tides, the flooding is even worse.

C’mon, Scylla, get some warm fuzzy feelings for these guys. Having to grow crops in tins filled with shit because of salt in the ground is not a fun way to live.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
**[
High tides often swamp vast portions of Tuvalu, which has a total land area of 26 square kilometers (10 square miles). Most recently, record high tides of 3.2 meters (10.56 feet) submerged much of the country, cutting telephone services for weeks and flooding Tuvalu’s only airport. When strong winds and waves accompany the high tides, the flooding is even worse.

C’mon, Scylla, get some warm fuzzy feelings for these guys. Having to grow crops in tins filled with shit because of salt in the ground is not a fun way to live. **
[/QUOTE]

I think at some point they’re just going to have to abandon ship, er island. I would imagine that it is feasible to save the island but I’m sure it would cost a lot of money. A lot more money then any country would be willing to spend. What happens to the fishing rights when the nation disappears or is abandoned?

Marc

[matt_mcl]

Moreover, which of this advice could be applicable to the people of Mauritius, the Maldives, Kiribati, and assorted other island countries that could be facing the same kinds of problems soon?

[clairobscur]

The existence of a territory is usually considered as one of the elements defining a state.

However, there is at least one counter-example : the Soveriegn Order of Malta has been without territory for 2 centuries, and its still recognized by a lot of countries (many of them didn’t even exist when the Order lost Malta), and this despite the fact that Malta still exists, with its own government, also recognized by the same countries.
Is the islands is indeed doomed, I suspect that its inhabitants will slowly leave them, with the conditions becoming too difficult. Until the day nobody would be left.

It’s pretty sure that nobody would give them another territory. Nevertheless, it doesn’t mean that the state would dissapear. For instance, there are some islands which, though they are submerged during high tides, are still considered as part of the territory of a given country, with the attached rights (like territorial waters).
So I would suspect that if the island would someday become uninhabitable, the tuvalians would relocate, but the state would still exist, selling fishing rights, printing stamps, issuing passports, and keeping its sovereignity over some dunes of salty sand rising above the sea level only during low tides. It would merely become a peculiar case as far as international law is considered.

[Weird_AL_Einstein]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**
Assuming that you indeed believe in the anthropogenic climate change theory, as I do, should the government of Tuvalu sue the biggest producer-states of greenhouse gases for their part in this crisis? **

Thinking it over, I for one would welcome a development such as this. I would very much like to see the theory that human activities are causing global temperatures to rise to be tested in a forum in which facts and hard scientific evidence are required. I would be much interested in observing an attempt to prove this theory beyond a reasonable doubt, or even just by a preponderance of the evidence.

Originally posted by Dave Stewart *
**
Are they going to pay for dirt to be shipped in?*

I’d be fascinated to know how much this would cost. GQ, anyone?

[Dave_Stewart]

In Japan, there is a beach at Shirahama for which someone regularly hauls in a container ship’s worth of white sand.

So it can be done: but I don’t know the cost.

MGibson poses a good question:

What happens to the fishing rights when the nation disappears or is abandoned?

Maybe this is the trade-off. “Let us relocate to your country, and we’ll give you our fishing rights.”

[Some_Guy]

A minor nitpick: the Order of Malta does control territory, consisting of a single building in Rome. Because of its history, this territory is considered separate from the Holy See, which makes it by far the smallest sovereign territory to retain substantial (though not universal) international recognition.

Here’s a link to their official English language website, maintained by the Order’s U. S. chapter. It is doubtful that their particular [url=“http://www.smom.org/order/history.html”] would help the Tuvaluans’ case at all, though.

[Some_Guy]

Bah.

[DPWhite]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Ahhh, now this is very interesting.

Occam’s razor suggests that before we go blaming greenhouse gases for the erosion of their islands (which I suppose they hypothesize is due to a rising sea level which has not yet been observed,) perhaps we might consider that if you live in a chain of very small islands, and you cart away all your sand for building materials, than your island is going to shrink. Additionally, if you clear cut what forests and growth you have that is also going to help the process of erosion along as well.

From the fact book:

; beachhead erosion because of the use of sand for building
materials; excessive clearance of forest undergrowth for use as fuel; damage to coral reefs from the spread of the Crown of Thorns starfish;

Now Tuvalu may be concerned about the greenhouse gases, but unless they have any actual evidence to suggest that it is a factor in the erosion of their islands, they really don’t have much of an argument, especially considering how much damage and erosion they are creating all by themselves.

You will also notice that Tuvalu sold it’s internet domain “.tv” for 50 million dollars! That comes out to more than $4,500 per citizen!

Perhaps Tuvalu could use this money to high some engineers to help them halt or reverse erosion. Or, they could divide the money up among the tend thousand inhabitants, and let them use it to emigrate or otherwise deal with the problem as they see fit.

Finally, the Polynesians have a long tradittion as a seafaring people.

Let 'em swim. **

This belongs in the pit. What a bunch of racist garbage! Sea levels all over the world have been increasing for many years, and not just because Tuvaluians have been moving their sand about. Temperatures are also increasing. No peer reviewed scientific paper disputes these things. In fact, even the cause is getting to the point where real scientists (peer reviewed) are almost unanimous. Right-wing radio talk show hosts are not scientists, they are blow hards.

[Billy_Rubin]

Sam said about the Ethiopians:

**
"Move to where the food is! You live in a &%^#()@* desert! We have deserts in America too, we just don’t try to live there!!**

Same concept seems to apply. Move where the environment isn’t inhospitable to human life.

Seems that nine mil, in a couple of years, could get them all off the island and into modest homes somewhere dry.

b.

[vorfod]

Same concept seems to apply. Move where the environment isn’t inhospitable to human life.

Billy: Have you ever had to leave the country you live in because it’s deemed “inhospitable to human life”?
Furthermore, move to where? The obvious answer is Australia, and considering our Government just boarded a container vessel with SAS troops due to there being 400 odd assylum seekers on board, I’d like to see the reaction over 11,000 odd refugees… (Then again, they’re not Middle Eastern, and probably not Muslim, so they have a better chance).