4 ms·
I think this should start with a simple question: How many square miles (or square meters) of territory have they lost due to sea level rising? This should pro
by caseysoftware 7y ago
I think this should start with a simple question:
How many square miles (or square meters) of territory have they lost due to sea level rising? This should probably exclude erosion but could be an interesting additional point/counter.
That would establish a) that they've suffered damages and b) the scope of said damages. Identifying the guilty parties would be the next challenge but it's a starting point.
- lazyjones 7y agoAlso, will they pay us if it turns out they actually gained territory? https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html https://phys.org/news/2018-02-pacific-nation-bigger.html
- majewsky 7y agoThis question already quite complicated. Under your definition, is a territory lost if it's still above sea level, but is not arable anymore e.g. because of desertification? What if it's still arable, but the region's traditional crops produce less yield because of a temperature rise?