4 ms·

Ah, this is rather what I keep on explaining to folks about climate change - you don't have to wait for cities to be underwater, for infrastructure to be destro

Ah, this is rather what I keep on explaining to folks about climate change - you don't have to wait for cities to be underwater, for infrastructure to be destroyed, for the worst consequences to be felt - they just have to be anticipated for disaster to strike. For instance, you might have a scenario whereby Europe somehow has no climate change (this is demonstrably not the case), but, say, the 'stans become nigh on uninhabitable, or at least, bad enough that people don't want to stay put - you end up with a refugee crisis on your doorstep. This foments political change, economic change, and again, climate change is having an affect without directly affecting the local area. Commensurately, you might find that your home insurance premiums on the gulf coast just keep on going up, and you decide to sell - except, the best you can get is less than you bought the place for, because new buyers are either building in the cost of insurance to the purchase price or don't exist, so you either don't sell, and end up staying until disaster really does strike, at which point you have nothing, or you relocate, writing off the worth of your property - which is where a great deal of people keep most of their net worth - and again, relocate, destitute. This creates pressure elsewhere on employment and housing markets, and before you know it, Iowa is saying that they want to implement immigration controls because the locals are up in arms, and political instability ensues. Meanwhile, your property on the gulf coast is still there, still standing, still not submerged, but the town's services have been gutted by the exodus, and the place is worth nothing - despite having not had any direct climate change impact. Our society is a deeply unstable chaotic attractor - little nudges can cause massive disruption. Climate change is more of a shove, than a nudge.

DubiousPusher 10y ago
Cities and municipal infrastructure are one thing. It's a necessary massive realignment of the food production system that scares the shit out of me.
- scarmig 10y ago
  Food production will have to shift, which costs money. But I would guess that the cost of building agricultural infrastructure in previously too-cold-and-dry-for-food regions is small compared to the cost of moving entire cities. In other words, suppose Iowa becomes a wasteland because of temperature changes. Other regions will become better suited for crops at the same time. Do we have reason to believe building the infrastructure for those lands to be suitable for agriculture would be more expensive than, say, moving the entire populations of Miami or Dhaka to someplace above sea level?
  - DubiousPusher 10y ago
    I can't say which one would be more expensive in raw replacement cost. One thing I'd point out is that while urban infrastructure is deep, rural infrastructure is broad. Tens of thousands of miles of highways, railways and irrigation exist largely for bringing material to where food grows and taking food from where it grows to where it is processed and then on to where it is purchased. How many square miles of rural Iowa adds up to single square block of downtown Miami I'm not sure but the potential human toll is much more frightening. Displacing large amounts of people is of course deeply problematic. You need look no further than the situation we're in today with Syrian refugees for evidence of that. But in terms of turmoil, death and violence human displacements tend to pale in comparison to large scale disruptions of food production.
- riskable 10y ago
  Food production won't impact the US much. That's infinitely more adjustable than the location of people's homes and businesses. Unless, of course, your worst nightmare is a severe shortage of almonds. Yeah, they're likely to become an extreme luxury product.

DubiousPusher 10y ago

Cities and municipal infrastructure are one thing. It's a necessary massive realignment of the food production system that scares the shit out of me.

scarmig 10y ago
Food production will have to shift, which costs money. But I would guess that the cost of building agricultural infrastructure in previously too-cold-and-dry-for-food regions is small compared to the cost of moving entire cities. In other words, suppose Iowa becomes a wasteland because of temperature changes. Other regions will become better suited for crops at the same time. Do we have reason to believe building the infrastructure for those lands to be suitable for agriculture would be more expensive than, say, moving the entire populations of Miami or Dhaka to someplace above sea level?
- DubiousPusher 10y ago
  I can't say which one would be more expensive in raw replacement cost. One thing I'd point out is that while urban infrastructure is deep, rural infrastructure is broad. Tens of thousands of miles of highways, railways and irrigation exist largely for bringing material to where food grows and taking food from where it grows to where it is processed and then on to where it is purchased. How many square miles of rural Iowa adds up to single square block of downtown Miami I'm not sure but the potential human toll is much more frightening. Displacing large amounts of people is of course deeply problematic. You need look no further than the situation we're in today with Syrian refugees for evidence of that. But in terms of turmoil, death and violence human displacements tend to pale in comparison to large scale disruptions of food production.
riskable 10y ago
Food production won't impact the US much. That's infinitely more adjustable than the location of people's homes and businesses. Unless, of course, your worst nightmare is a severe shortage of almonds. Yeah, they're likely to become an extreme luxury product.