3 ms·
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
by 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 agoWell, 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 agoI 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.