This post is part of Macro, our series on economics, business and personal finance bank in collaboration with Hello!

On 21 July, Ioane Teitiota has lost one of the most important legal battles of his life, and perhaps the entire world.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand has in fact finally refused his request to obtain the status of "environmental refugee".
It would have been the first legal case to recognize the right to migrate due to climate change.
Ioane Teitiota lives in New Zealand since 2007, has a wife and two children born in New Zealand, and is now in danger of being deported to his country of origin.
It is of Kiribati, a tiny island in the Pacific, whose existence is threatened by rising sea levels.
"It is not safe to return to live there," he said before the judges, who refused his request arguing that "there is no immediate danger to his life or that of his family."
Others argue the opposite.
In 1976 Lester Brown, president and founder of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington, coined the term "environmental refugee" to explain how climate change would have necessarily led to massive movements of the human population.
In 1997, Brown calculated that in the world there were at least 25 million "environmental refugees" even if there were no laws ready to recognize this new reality, and launched into a dire prediction: by 2010 this figure would double, to reach 200 million in 2050.
According to the UN, in 2008 alone 36 million people have had to move because of natural disasters, of which 20 million for climatic reasons.
The 200 million in 2050 is a futuristic figure, according to some science fiction and devoid of academic credibility, but according to Esteban Rossi-Hansberg Princeton and Klaus Desmet Universidad Carlos III, "if people can not move, global warming will have disastrous consequences : 44 percent of humanity lives within 150 kilometers from the coast, so that rising sea levels could be fatal; millions of people in the tropics could see their livelihoods destroyed because of the collapse of crops caused by the temperature over a certain threshold. "
Photo via Flickr.
But how will the global economy as we approach to wide steps to the situation in which migration could become uncontrollable and enormous environmental changes will forever change the Earth?
To provide a response effort are Melissa Dell and Benjamin Olken Benjamin Jones, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
According to them, "if future reactions will follow the capability of those of the past, global climate change will lower the growth rate of a poor country median of 0.6 percent per year from now until 2099.
Over the course of 90 years, then this hypothetical country will be 40 percent poorer than it would be in the absence of climate change. "
The richest countries, however, would be relatively less affected by climate change because their economies are linked to a greater extent intangible elements of production.
Obviously, "changes in higher than recent historical experience temperatures may produce nonlinear effects, not encompassed by our estimates."
The truth is that no one can predict clearly what will happen to the temperature and how the production systems will answer, "the uncertainty is here to stay," argue Geoffrey Heal of Columbia University and Antony Millner of the London School of Economics, inviting you to prepare for worst case scenarios.
As reiterated by Torsten Persson of Stockholm School of Economics, which states: "There are very few simulations with a warming of 'only' 2-3 degrees Celsius, but we must pay close attention to the pessimistic tail of the distribution: the highest achievement of estimates of the temperature reaches 7 degrees Celsius in 2105, the effects of which could include rising sea levels to levels that endanger strategic cities like London, Shanghai, New York and substantial risks on a large scale for the system-earth, like collapses of Gulf stream or the melting of Antarctic ice. "
But there is another side of the coin.
The rising temperatures and melting ice will allow it access to resources hitherto unexplored.
So while there are increasing calls concerned, a small group of countries rubs his hands.
They are those who, according to some, will be the future world superpowers.
When the ice will retreat from Greenland, for example, the small Denmark will get a territory of more than two million square kilometers, the size of Mexico and eight times Italy, rich in natural resources.
Canada also will be part of the club, seeing rid almost unexplored lands to the north along the Arctic Circle.
Photo via Wikimedia Commons.
According to Laurence C. Smith, author of The World in 2050, global warming will free resources such as oil, water and natural gas, which will attract migrants and lead to the development of the Nordic countries precisely at a time when most southerly countries will always have fewer resources and a shrinking population.
Smith thus speaks of a world dominated by so-called "NORC," the Northern Rim Countries: Iceland and Norway as well as Canada and Denmark, and to a lesser extent Sweden and Finland.
The United States will participate in a small way in this race to the new West, thanks to Alaska, but in geopolitical terms to awaken it is mainly the Russian giant, which sees all of North face exposed to the Arctic ice.
The Norwegian government has estimated that due to climate change will increase the agricultural productivity of the country, especially in the northern parts of the country.
Not to mention that Norway has a significant part of the South Pole, the so-called Antarctic, covered for 12 months by ice and hidden natural resources that could unlock when the temperature increase.
virgin lands shared with Australia, France, New Zealand, Britain, Chile and Argentina, in addition to an unexplored portion and do not currently owned by any nation.
They are already hard international legal battles games to claim the ownership of these lands, and it is said that disputes to stop, while sea levels rise, the official documents.

From Vice