4 ms·

I have real issues with states like this where it's leaders deny climate change and prevent action on it, yet cry when issues like this occur. Similar when the

by erentz 10y ago

I have real issues with states like this where it's leaders deny climate change and prevent action on it, yet cry when issues like this occur. Similar when the BP oil spill occurred and they cried about the affect on their coast and fishing industries. They seemingly are fine with destroying their environment so long as it occurs over 50 years rather than 5 months.

dnautics 10y ago
Isn't most of the coastline damage a result of creating shipping canals and pushing brackish water further inland?
- erentz 10y ago
  Today. My issue is with the ongoing support for actions that will lead to the eventual destruction over decades anyway, while complaining about current or historical destruction. If the coastline is important to them today, why don't they care about it in the future?
  - philipov 10y ago
    'I'll be gone; you'll be gone.'
    - bkkssnn 10y ago
      The thing i still don't get is that most of these people have kids right? How can it not be a relevant issue for them ?
      - philipov 10y ago
        I suspect there is a lot of "If I don't do it first, someone else will, and they'll be the ones to make all the profits" going on. In that kind of environment, the best thing you can do for your kids is make as much money as possible so at least they will be rich enough to enjoy whatever's left.
        self_assembly 10y ago
        Isn't that the definition of a race to the bottom. I have no idea how far away the bottom is, but it seems like once we get there that money might not be all that useful.
ryanmarsh 10y ago
You think the governor knew the name of the deep water horizon before it caught fire? It was 41 miles off the coast.
- erentz 10y ago
  I don't get the relevance?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
I'm still waiting for the red states to prove their fiscal conservatism by not taking a disproportionate share of federal money.
neverartful 10y ago
It's not as simple as you may think. There have been problems with coastal erosion in south LA long before anyone even brought up the idea of global warming. As another poster mentioned, creating canals through the marshes lets salt/brackish water come further inland than it would have (especially with hurricanes). The salt water kills some of the vegetation that holds the marsh together. Another big factor is dredging years ago. Dredging was done as part of creating canals, but also to gather shells that were used for decades to make 'gravel' roads and such. Probably most significant of all (as pointed out by others) was putting in river control structures (primarily levees) long ago by Army Corps of Engineers. The prevents the natural build-up of silt, sediment, and alluvial soil that built up the river plains and deltas. All of these things occurred long before there was any discussion of global warming. The state can be blamed for excessive dredging and cutting canals, but hindsight is 20/20. Putting in river control structures was considered the right thing to do back then (Mississippi River levees were built in 1800s), and certainly was not only done by those in LA. Now comes global warming/climate change and it complicates the picture even more. The solutions to all of these problems are not mutually exclusive. Coastal erosion exacerbates the problem of rising seas for coastal areas. Another tricky factor is where people should and should not live. It's easy (and logical) to say people shouldn't live in areas prone to heavy flooding, and if they do they should accept the possibility of flooding as a consequence of their decision. For example, the lower 9th ward in New Orleans that was completely flooded in Hurricane Katrina was known to be susceptible to major flooding (it had happened at least once before in the 1920's or thereabouts). The majority of the people that live there are poor, their families have been there all their lives, and most probably don't have the means to pick up and go someplace else. Of course LA residents are responsible for many of these things that have occurred over very long periods of time. But when you consider the full story and where they are today, it's not like the problems in the coastal areas are only the result of global warming.
- erentz 10y ago
  (I think people are somehow totally misunderstanding what I'm saying but I'm not sure how to say it much clearer.) To suddenly be concerned and have a change of heart about one historical cause of damage to your coast (dredging, etc), but completely ignore for ideological reasons another major ongoing cause that will make any fixes you do to the prior destruction pointless, is, well, bad, dumb, stupid? What should we call it?

by erentz 10y ago

dnautics 10y ago

Isn't most of the coastline damage a result of creating shipping canals and pushing brackish water further inland?

erentz 10y ago
Today. My issue is with the ongoing support for actions that will lead to the eventual destruction over decades anyway, while complaining about current or historical destruction. If the coastline is important to them today, why don't they care about it in the future?
- philipov 10y ago
  'I'll be gone; you'll be gone.'
  - bkkssnn 10y ago
    The thing i still don't get is that most of these people have kids right? How can it not be a relevant issue for them ?
    - philipov 10y ago
      I suspect there is a lot of "If I don't do it first, someone else will, and they'll be the ones to make all the profits" going on. In that kind of environment, the best thing you can do for your kids is make as much money as possible so at least they will be rich enough to enjoy whatever's left.
      - self_assembly 10y ago
        Isn't that the definition of a race to the bottom. I have no idea how far away the bottom is, but it seems like once we get there that money might not be all that useful.

ryanmarsh 10y ago

You think the governor knew the name of the deep water horizon before it caught fire? It was 41 miles off the coast.

erentz 10y ago
I don't get the relevance?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

kevin_thibedeau 10y ago

I'm still waiting for the red states to prove their fiscal conservatism by not taking a disproportionate share of federal money.

neverartful 10y ago

It's not as simple as you may think. There have been problems with coastal erosion in south LA long before anyone even brought up the idea of global warming. As another poster mentioned, creating canals through the marshes lets salt/brackish water come further inland than it would have (especially with hurricanes). The salt water kills some of the vegetation that holds the marsh together. Another big factor is dredging years ago. Dredging was done as part of creating canals, but also to gather shells that were used for decades to make 'gravel' roads and such. Probably most significant of all (as pointed out by others) was putting in river control structures (primarily levees) long ago by Army Corps of Engineers. The prevents the natural build-up of silt, sediment, and alluvial soil that built up the river plains and deltas. All of these things occurred long before there was any discussion of global warming. The state can be blamed for excessive dredging and cutting canals, but hindsight is 20/20. Putting in river control structures was considered the right thing to do back then (Mississippi River levees were built in 1800s), and certainly was not only done by those in LA. Now comes global warming/climate change and it complicates the picture even more. The solutions to all of these problems are not mutually exclusive. Coastal erosion exacerbates the problem of rising seas for coastal areas. Another tricky factor is where people should and should not live. It's easy (and logical) to say people shouldn't live in areas prone to heavy flooding, and if they do they should accept the possibility of flooding as a consequence of their decision. For example, the lower 9th ward in New Orleans that was completely flooded in Hurricane Katrina was known to be susceptible to major flooding (it had happened at least once before in the 1920's or thereabouts). The majority of the people that live there are poor, their families have been there all their lives, and most probably don't have the means to pick up and go someplace else. Of course LA residents are responsible for many of these things that have occurred over very long periods of time. But when you consider the full story and where they are today, it's not like the problems in the coastal areas are only the result of global warming.

erentz 10y ago
(I think people are somehow totally misunderstanding what I'm saying but I'm not sure how to say it much clearer.) To suddenly be concerned and have a change of heart about one historical cause of damage to your coast (dredging, etc), but completely ignore for ideological reasons another major ongoing cause that will make any fixes you do to the prior destruction pointless, is, well, bad, dumb, stupid? What should we call it?