4 ms·
Sure thing, all the other states you mention speak to the capacity of the shoreline to absorb some amount of water increase (from any source). Independently, i
by dv_dt 10y ago
Sure thing, all the other states you mention speak to the capacity of the shoreline to absorb some amount of water increase (from any source). Independently, if the frequency and intensity of flooding events is predicted to increase in the future, one would think that long term zoning regulations to preserve or increase the capacity of the shore to absorb flooding would be cheaper than, fix-it-quick with big infrastructure projects after catastrophic damage has already occured. That's why it's cheaper to address it now, rather than wait until the building policy completely breaks down.
- mistermann 10y ago...assuming something WILL have to be done. If we can continue to muddle through for 100-200 years, it isn't cheaper to fix it now.
- hackuser 10y ago> If we can continue to muddle through for 100-200 years That is wishful thinking. The clear consensus is that we can't, and that it's not a close call.
- ak4g 10y agoSources please. The clear consensus is that AGW is real. That is a far cry from saying that there is a clear consensus that it must be dealt with ever, let alone that it must be dealt with in the near-term.
- hackuser 10y agoAs a start: The U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence community; and I'm almost certain: The IPCC and the insurance industry. I encourage you to read the IPCC summary report; it will clear up a lot of mysteries.
- PeterisP 10y agoThere's no consensus that it "must" be dealt with, however, there is a clear consensus that if we don't deal with it (which is a quite possible scenario) then places like Florida Keys will cease to be inhabitable within the next 50-100 years.
- hackuser 10y ago> There's no consensus that it "must" be dealt with If you mean that there is no political consensus in the United States, yes, that's true beyond a doubt. If you mean that there is no consensus among scientists and experts in the field, then that's wrong. There is and has been a clear consensus that we "must" act urgently.
- PeterisP 10y agoScientists have a clear consensus that if we don't do it, then we'll have certain consequences. However, if we're looking at the actions of everyone who might actually deal with it, then there's a clear consensus that we're actually choosing to face the consequences instead. "Must" implies a degree of certainty, a statement that we will have to deal with it one way or another, and thus we will deal with it - however, that doesn't seem to be the case here, it is quite plausible that we will choose to not deal with it properly. It would be nice if we acted urgently, but there's no "must" there - it's quite likely that we will not do so. If we want to use the word "must" then it might be more appropriate to say that irreversible climate change is the thing that must occur, given the current global political 'climate'.
- hackuser 10y agoI generally agree, and don't want to bicker over the wording, except one important point ... > if we're looking at the actions of everyone who might actually deal with it, then there's a clear consensus that we're actually choosing to face the consequences instead. Very many are denying that climate change is happening, or falling back to denying the consequences, or falling back to saying there's nothing we can do about it.