3 ms·

You can't fix it "locally". Without global solution the sea level will just go higher and higher, and you will have to relocate all major coastal cities in a m

• CompelTechnic 11y ago
  In light of how hard of a problem the global solution is (stopping greenhouse gas emissions), which one do you think is cheaper and easier? The global solution costs trillions of dollars as well, and has much more difficult coordination problems. The local solution in this context at least has the benefit of having well defined goals where individual agents act out of there own easy to understand best interest. i.e: My house in Florida is flooding- I'm going to move to a different state. i.e: New York City is flooding and I'm a property developer- I'm going to build high rises somewhere close to NYC but at +30 m elevation.
  • yongjik 11y ago
    Well, as they say, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging. That is, the "local solutions" are at best interim measures to give us more time (while we hopefully tackle the root cause). They don't "solve" anything. If your house in Florida is flooded and you move to Montana, you merely avoided the problem. I'm not saying it's wrong of you; it's the rational action for an individual. But it didn't solve anything any more than refugees fleeing Syria have solved the problem of war in Syria. And, just like Syria, some people will have to foot the bill this way or that.
  • graeme 11y ago
    I think this understates the magnitude of the problem. Humanity has had pretty constant coastlines for our entire history. If we get accelerating sea level rise we'll have to keep rebuilding our urban infrastructure every decade or three.
• barrkel 11y ago
  The cost of maintaining sea walls will affect the value of land protected by the walls, and if levels continue to rise it will make land elsewhere more competitive. So I think local solutions will have global effects - effects of moving people and stuff around. It's not like sea level rises are going to be sudden and unexpected; they will be priced in if and when they have economically measurable effects. I don't think there are any real problems directly caused by global warming in rich countries. Price information, including insurance costs, will be enough. Second order effects like changes in the viability of crops may affect food security (but I expect climate change to make crops more viable elsewhere, or a different production mix), and economic (but warming related) migration will be a continuing and increasing challenge. International migration of farmers is probably the biggest problem I see. International coordination of action is not going to happen or make any real difference without threat of military force, and I don't buy the idea that the problems will be acute and obvious enough to justify that. You can't fight tragedy of the commons without an overarching authority which we don't have. Countries will cheat for local gain. Global climate change politics is mostly a waste of time unless people are willing to start wars over failures to curb emmissions, and I just don't see it. People are much more willing to start wars over migration pressures, so I think that's what we'll see.
  • intended 11y ago
    You forget - the ones who get displaced, the poor, the third world - they are going to blame the west squarely. That negative sentiment will take on a life of its own.
    • 15charlimit 11y ago
      The poor and those in the third-world already blame the west for many of their problems. This changes nothing.
• yxhuvud 11y ago
  Yes you most definitely can fix it locally, at least for some locales. Point in case: Netherlands.