5 ms·

Some places, like the US, can afford to pay substantial amounts for mitigation. It can build a lot of seawalls and desalination plants and probably even reloca

Some places, like the US, can afford to pay substantial amounts for mitigation. It can build a lot of seawalls and desalination plants and probably even relocate Miami (or at least some of it). Other places like Bangladesh, cannot. Its per capita GDP is 2.5% of the US's, is incredibly low lying and incredibly densely populated. A 3 foot rise in sea level would displace 30 million people [0]. That would make Syria's refugee crisis look like peanuts, its hard to imagine it occurring without millions dying and a regional war. Would this be considered something we can deal with? [0] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfolding-tragedy-of-climate-change-in-bangladesh/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-unfoldin...

ThomPete 8y ago
Yes, of course, we can deal with it. Just like we have done in the developed countries.
- BLKNSLVR 8y ago
  Because look how well the Syria thing has worked out? I think you have a problem seeing the scale of humanity that could be affected, and the scale of engineering and infrastructure effort would be required to support relocating 30 million people. Bangladesh doesn't have the money to do it, and the US will be too busy working on the Mexico wall. Unless of course you're only concerned about the species surviving, rather than a large percentage of the population surviving. Even if we know what a solution is, there's an ocean separating knowing a solution from implementing a solution.
  - ThomPete 8y ago
    Is the world ending because of Syria?
    - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
      No, but it's bad enough that the US wants to extricate itself from the situation. The tip of the spear only causes a small wound.
      - ThomPete 8y ago
        You are mixing your political opinion into this which makes it impossible to debate this rationally.
        BLKNSLVR 8y ago
        It's inescapably a political issue, but my point wasn't based on politics, it was based on the complexity and duration of the situation. Highlighting that the time scales involved to solve these issues are longer than it appears you are giving credence to. You could point to Germany as an example of a country that's dealt fairly well with an influx of refugees from 2015, at 890,000 refugee applications, but it takes time to process them all, it's far from a smooth transition[0], plus there's a human toll associated with mass migration that falls along a purely subjective 'scale of acceptability': More than 5,000 asylum seekers died in sea crossings, either by drowning, fuel inhalation or suffocation in overcrowded and unseaworthy boats.[1] The issues of integration into the community, work, language barriers, and other cultural differences will mean there will be a limit at which a population will tolerate an influx of refugees. There will also be a limit to what governments can afford to provide to refugees finding their feet. Elections are already won or lost on refugee and immigration policy, with the 'more restrictive' policies generally being more popular amongst voters. These things aren't new, but the scale has the strong potential to be much greater. [0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-03/germanys-open-door-refugee-problems-12-months-on/7811116 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-03/germanys-open-door-re... [1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-germany-asylum-seekers-numbers-drop-600000-in-2016-angela-merkel-syria-middle-east-a7521191.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-cris...
        ThomPete 8y ago
        None of those things are even close to being unsolvable though and that's really the point here. I am being downvoted for not panicking which is fine and just shows how religious people are treating this topic. With regards to limits, the cost of that is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of using inferior technologies to solve a problem we don't even know will be a problem in a 100 years from now.

ThomPete 8y ago

Yes, of course, we can deal with it. Just like we have done in the developed countries.

BLKNSLVR 8y ago
Because look how well the Syria thing has worked out? I think you have a problem seeing the scale of humanity that could be affected, and the scale of engineering and infrastructure effort would be required to support relocating 30 million people. Bangladesh doesn't have the money to do it, and the US will be too busy working on the Mexico wall. Unless of course you're only concerned about the species surviving, rather than a large percentage of the population surviving. Even if we know what a solution is, there's an ocean separating knowing a solution from implementing a solution.
- ThomPete 8y ago
  Is the world ending because of Syria?
  - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
    No, but it's bad enough that the US wants to extricate itself from the situation. The tip of the spear only causes a small wound.
    - ThomPete 8y ago
      You are mixing your political opinion into this which makes it impossible to debate this rationally.
      - BLKNSLVR 8y ago
        It's inescapably a political issue, but my point wasn't based on politics, it was based on the complexity and duration of the situation. Highlighting that the time scales involved to solve these issues are longer than it appears you are giving credence to. You could point to Germany as an example of a country that's dealt fairly well with an influx of refugees from 2015, at 890,000 refugee applications, but it takes time to process them all, it's far from a smooth transition[0], plus there's a human toll associated with mass migration that falls along a purely subjective 'scale of acceptability': More than 5,000 asylum seekers died in sea crossings, either by drowning, fuel inhalation or suffocation in overcrowded and unseaworthy boats.[1] The issues of integration into the community, work, language barriers, and other cultural differences will mean there will be a limit at which a population will tolerate an influx of refugees. There will also be a limit to what governments can afford to provide to refugees finding their feet. Elections are already won or lost on refugee and immigration policy, with the 'more restrictive' policies generally being more popular amongst voters. These things aren't new, but the scale has the strong potential to be much greater. [0]: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-03/germanys-open-door-refugee-problems-12-months-on/7811116 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-03/germanys-open-door-re... [1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-crisis-germany-asylum-seekers-numbers-drop-600000-in-2016-angela-merkel-syria-middle-east-a7521191.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugee-cris...
        ThomPete 8y ago
        None of those things are even close to being unsolvable though and that's really the point here. I am being downvoted for not panicking which is fine and just shows how religious people are treating this topic. With regards to limits, the cost of that is absolutely nothing compared to the cost of using inferior technologies to solve a problem we don't even know will be a problem in a 100 years from now.