4 ms·

"The state has a plan to implement more than 100 restoration and protection projects — like rebuilding marshes and barrier islands..." Sounds like a terrible p

by delinka 10y ago

"The state has a plan to implement more than 100 restoration and protection projects — like rebuilding marshes and barrier islands..." Sounds like a terrible plan to me. Treating symptoms instead of the disease won't solve the problem. Just because we humans are "determined" doesn't mean fighting nature like this will be successful. I'm sure the locals will feel better about their politicians for a few years and probably just long enough to 'forget' until the next time this exact problem needs to be solved. The true options in this case are: 1) prevent rising sea levels, 2) move away from the coast. Wasting money "rebuilding" barrier islands is just folly.

frankquist 10y ago
Why not both? Half of my country (NL) exists due to smart protection against water and we're doing pretty good. Doesn't mean global warming isn't an important consideration. If someone has a broken bone, you want to fix that, but you'll also want to give them some painkillers if they're in a lot of pain.
criley2 10y ago
Actually when you consider the global implications of climate and the local effects of shore, a local area using local money to protect local shore in the face of global inaction they are powerless to change makes perfect sense. It is actually your position which makes no sense. "Hey 4.6 million Louisianans, sure you're only 0.00063% of world population, but protecting yourself and your land from what the other 99.9994% do is futile, you must instead convince the other ~7.1 billion humans to change so your land will be safe!"
- throwaway55523 10y ago
  You need to move the decimal a couple places on your perecentages.
- delinka 10y ago
  And what about moving industry and residences away from the current coastline over the next 50 years? Make a plan to prevent new real estate development within a certain distance of the current coast; plan the obsolescence of currently developed areas and over time reclaim them for the environment.
  - ItsDeathball 10y ago
    That's a problem when the coastline is the reason for those industries and residences being there. It's not exactly feasible to relocate the oil refining and shipbuilding industries of New Orleans and Baton Rouge to central Mississippi.
thesmallestcat 10y ago
Can you explain why it's silly to rebuild barrier islands, which prevent beach erosion? Is it your view that people should experience the consequences of rising sea levels as catastrophically as possible?
- delinka 10y ago
  If beach erosion were the problem, maintaining barrier islands makes sense. But when the ocean levels are rising and simply crawling up the beach, putting everything underwater? Sure, we could probably engineer building up the coastline with higher land to maintain the current coastline, but at what expense? At what point do we just decide that the coastline is moving inland and we should just follow suit?
  - thesmallestcat 10y ago
    Erosion is the difference between being able to live in a home on stilts, and having the land beneath collapse into the ocean. There is land below sea level and it experiences erosion too. Rising sea levels accelerate erosion, which clearly doesn't make it less of an issue.

by delinka 10y ago

frankquist 10y ago

Why not both? Half of my country (NL) exists due to smart protection against water and we're doing pretty good. Doesn't mean global warming isn't an important consideration. If someone has a broken bone, you want to fix that, but you'll also want to give them some painkillers if they're in a lot of pain.

criley2 10y ago

Actually when you consider the global implications of climate and the local effects of shore, a local area using local money to protect local shore in the face of global inaction they are powerless to change makes perfect sense. It is actually your position which makes no sense. "Hey 4.6 million Louisianans, sure you're only 0.00063% of world population, but protecting yourself and your land from what the other 99.9994% do is futile, you must instead convince the other ~7.1 billion humans to change so your land will be safe!"

throwaway55523 10y ago
You need to move the decimal a couple places on your perecentages.
delinka 10y ago
And what about moving industry and residences away from the current coastline over the next 50 years? Make a plan to prevent new real estate development within a certain distance of the current coast; plan the obsolescence of currently developed areas and over time reclaim them for the environment.
- ItsDeathball 10y ago
  That's a problem when the coastline is the reason for those industries and residences being there. It's not exactly feasible to relocate the oil refining and shipbuilding industries of New Orleans and Baton Rouge to central Mississippi.

thesmallestcat 10y ago

Can you explain why it's silly to rebuild barrier islands, which prevent beach erosion? Is it your view that people should experience the consequences of rising sea levels as catastrophically as possible?

delinka 10y ago
If beach erosion were the problem, maintaining barrier islands makes sense. But when the ocean levels are rising and simply crawling up the beach, putting everything underwater? Sure, we could probably engineer building up the coastline with higher land to maintain the current coastline, but at what expense? At what point do we just decide that the coastline is moving inland and we should just follow suit?
- thesmallestcat 10y ago
  Erosion is the difference between being able to live in a home on stilts, and having the land beneath collapse into the ocean. There is land below sea level and it experiences erosion too. Rising sea levels accelerate erosion, which clearly doesn't make it less of an issue.