4 ms·

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.

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.