Well, that times article actually does point out that building seawalls and other barriers is the way to protect the areas that will be below sea level, so Lomb

Well, that times article actually does point out that building seawalls and other barriers is the way to protect the areas that will be below sea level, so Lomborg and the Times seems to share a lot of common ground on this. > I think that this comes down to a difference between you and Lomborg's perception of how large groups of people solve problems. It's top-down/central planning vs. distributed. No. I don't care whether there's a top-down or bottom up solution. My point talking about taxes and land was actually about the importance of the media in informing people about the problem. I only mentioned taxes and eminent domain because that's how large capital project usually work. If there's a bottom up way that will get the job done better, I'm all for it. Point is, the media is still important for informing people. If they don't understand what's going on they won't have any reason to do anything. No matter how it's done, it's going to require large amounts of resources and people aren't going to expend them without a reason. > I understand this perspective is dissatisfying... I wouldn't say dissatisfying. It's just a meaningless approach. We have been and continue to work to eliminate poverty and I fully agree we should keep doing so. Great. Now let's move on: how will we deal with the rising water levels around the globe? If it's build barriers, then how will that work? E.g., what will it cost? Who will do it? When do they need to start? Are there alternatives that may be cheaper or better?