When approaching anthropogenic climate change challenges and merits, ethics are naturally constructed within. We should see ourselves as committed to those who managed to adapt to extreme climate, which is predicted to intensify - to a point where a certain land cannot provide its inhabitants with resources that would allow their reciprocity, and survival. Vast derivatives of climate refugees integration into new lands arose. Transnationalism in an age which the land cannot be relied on - and global community would have to conduct a new social order which is based on global trust and ethics. A transnational Social order which allows sepian to move freely across lands, from disastrous to asylum shores safely. Perhaps we should give more credit to the affinity of societies to their land, understanding that migration is an act of survival, or at least an act with constructed identity losses. The most precious estate of one. It's not about dissertation of national values - but promising their existence without geographical restrictions. Social order which would allow reciprocity for all, as the other more realistic option declares an age of violent conflicts over resources in a neoliberal context. May the stronger win?

 

Essay heads:

1. Glossary

2. Climate Change Global Challenges Characteristics

3. Ethics derivative from the ‘consensus’ over anthropogenic climate change

4. The new landscapes of war, climate change, climatic migration and rise of national movements

5. Structures bias in the neoliberal era when discussing ‘merits’ of anthropogenic climate change

6. Conclusions

​