4 ms·

Which would have been a good article, but that's definitely not all the article was saying, since the author was clearly arguing against CO2-emission reduction

• rich_sasha 7y ago
  Are you referring to this bit: "[...] push policymakers toward excessively expensive measures to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The real solution is to lift the world’s poorest out of poverty and protect them with simple infrastructure. [...]"? I think there is a point to be made. I'm no climate change denier. But with mitigating the effects of climate change, we are trading an up-front cost today against a benefit in the future. Both the up-front cost and the future benefit must be fairly estimated, as much as we can. Claims like "We must cut carbon emissions to 0 or South Vietnam will be eradicated" justify a very different level, or at least destination of spending than saying "South Vietnam will need [international help] to build extensive anti-flood infrastructure". Potentially at least, I don't know the numbers.
  • AstralStorm 7y ago
    Anti-flood infrastructure, and water supply infrastructure including desalination plus cleaning, and rework their farming practices completely, likely reduce no longer available seafood intake, and expand power grid to supply additional power to air conditioning... And more. Mind you, poor will be hit first and hardest. It's the tip of the (soon no longer extant) iceberg. Flooding is the relatively easy part. Water, food and power are hard.