3 ms·

> Why not build This is a fair question, and pops up in nearly every thread about this topic, usually replied to with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N

by niftich 10y ago

> Why not build This is a fair question, and pops up in nearly every thread about this topic, usually replied to with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power... and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_Development_Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_D... The idea has been raised before, and dismissed because of massive costs, unprecedented environmental impacts, and the like.

ChuckMcM 10y ago
Yup. And to put my biases on the table, I believe this is where the climate change disaster is heading. Nobody, and I mean really nobody, with any scientific training believes that humans can control the climate (yes we affect the climate but we don't yet have any way of telling it to do one thing or another). Further, our models for the ways we are affecting the climate indicate that massive changes in the way water is distributed across the country are inevitable (see this article as another example of that). As a result we will either decide to spend the money and apply our technology to mitigating the impact of climate change on the humans, or we may (some consider it likely) experience a massive die off of humans. (which oddly some people are hoping for, they don't think it will be them. See the preppers in Montana for example) There are many ways to create the GDP for this, one would be to employ the under employed[1]. We could allocate two trillion dollars over the next 5 years and put 10M young people to work. Or we could spend the two trillion dollars like we did over the last 5 years, adventuring in the middle east.[2] Personally, I would prefer fighting a war we can win, we understand how to survive climate change. [1] "From April to July 2016, the number of employed youth 16 to 24 years old increased by 1.9 million to 20.5 million, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This year, 53.2 percent of young people were employed in July, little changed from a year earlier. (The month of July typically is the summertime peak in youth employment.) Unemployment among youth rose by 611,000 from April to July 2016, compared with an increase of 654,000 for the same period in 2015. (Because this analysis focuses on the seasonal changes in youth employment and unemployment that occur each spring and summer, the data are not seasonally adjusted.)" -- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm [2] http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic
- iofj 10y ago
  I don't understand how your statements aren't a direct logical contradiction. One of two things is true: 1) we are able to predict the effect of external changes to earth's climate. 2) we are not. In the first case, we can predict climate change and find an effect to change the climate to suit us. In the second case we can do neither. But the idea that we can predict climate change but are unable to predict the effect of deliberate changes doesn't fit in either situation. So how can you hold this position ? It does not make sense ? Furthermore, I seriously doubt preppers in Montana are a significant part of the climate change policy makers.

by niftich 10y ago

ChuckMcM 10y ago

Yup. And to put my biases on the table, I believe this is where the climate change disaster is heading. Nobody, and I mean really nobody, with any scientific training believes that humans can control the climate (yes we affect the climate but we don't yet have any way of telling it to do one thing or another). Further, our models for the ways we are affecting the climate indicate that massive changes in the way water is distributed across the country are inevitable (see this article as another example of that). As a result we will either decide to spend the money and apply our technology to mitigating the impact of climate change on the humans, or we may (some consider it likely) experience a massive die off of humans. (which oddly some people are hoping for, they don't think it will be them. See the preppers in Montana for example) There are many ways to create the GDP for this, one would be to employ the under employed[1]. We could allocate two trillion dollars over the next 5 years and put 10M young people to work. Or we could spend the two trillion dollars like we did over the last 5 years, adventuring in the middle east.[2] Personally, I would prefer fighting a war we can win, we understand how to survive climate change. [1] "From April to July 2016, the number of employed youth 16 to 24 years old increased by 1.9 million to 20.5 million, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. This year, 53.2 percent of young people were employed in July, little changed from a year earlier. (The month of July typically is the summertime peak in youth employment.) Unemployment among youth rose by 611,000 from April to July 2016, compared with an increase of 654,000 for the same period in 2015. (Because this analysis focuses on the seasonal changes in youth employment and unemployment that occur each spring and summer, the data are not seasonally adjusted.)" -- http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm http://www.bls.gov/news.release/youth.nr0.htm [2] http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs/economic

iofj 10y ago
I don't understand how your statements aren't a direct logical contradiction. One of two things is true: 1) we are able to predict the effect of external changes to earth's climate. 2) we are not. In the first case, we can predict climate change and find an effect to change the climate to suit us. In the second case we can do neither. But the idea that we can predict climate change but are unable to predict the effect of deliberate changes doesn't fit in either situation. So how can you hold this position ? It does not make sense ? Furthermore, I seriously doubt preppers in Montana are a significant part of the climate change policy makers.