2 ms·

MV, EPA and MP becoming Venice. Giving the unstoppably rising price of real estate nobody is going to move away from such a valuable land, even if it is covered

by trhway 5y ago

MV, EPA and MP becoming Venice. Giving the unstoppably rising price of real estate nobody is going to move away from such a valuable land, even if it is covered by 3 feet of water (to illustrate - imagine the gold rush if real estate development in the shallow waters of the Bay would get allowed today). And once we get used to building in water i can see a new SF built few miles off the Ocean beach :) It can possibly be a future demand generator for various VTOL, human and package carrying, developments around. Google even has its own - KittyHawk. By the time of flooding we'll have batteries improved another order, automated air traffic management, etc.

eloff 5y ago
It's cheaper still to build barriers, especially since the sea level rise is gradual. It's just that if you think of what we're going to spend worldwide to mitigate the harms of sea level rise, it seems incredibly stupid to be burning subsidized fossil fuels. That's without even factoring in the other problems climate change will bring. A proper carbon taxing scheme with tariffs on countries that don't play along would make so much sense. One way or another the bill will be paid. Nature is a relentless debt collector.
- trhway 5y ago
  >It's cheaper still to build barriers for some definition of cheaper. For full cost you need to factor in political costs of implementing such a a collective action as well as opportunity costs. And once built it needs to be maintained. It requires continuous involvement into political fight to insure that the maintenance is happening to avoid Katrina type situations. The implicit threat of non-maintenance becomes a tool of political blackmail and pressure. It makes for high-risk business environment which is just bad for business. >it seems incredibly stupid to be burning subsidized fossil fuels. well, removing the subsidies and decreasing the fossil fuel burn is an immediately available very low cost collective action to slow climate change and delay water rise... We can see how it's been going so far. >A proper carbon taxing scheme with tariffs on countries that don't play along would make so much sense. Russia for example has all the sanctions and tariffs (and when there is no tariff imposed from outside, Russia usually takes care about that by having self-inflicted inside tariff there :) so it is hard to make much more, and Russia is anyway going full-steam into that warmer future (the global warming was taught in middle school even back in 198x in USSR) pumping oil and gas like crazy. Many Russian territories are becoming much more conductive for living and doing agriculture there. Short of WWIII there is not much can be done here (and Russia is actively building bases in the North and Far East as well as new strategic weapons system - the point is that they don't bet much on global international cooperation :). I'm pointing at Russia because i know it better than other countries, and of course it may be that Russia is large outlier, yet i somehow think that a number of other countries are also not betting much on successful global international cooperation in particular when it comes to global warming.

by trhway 5y ago

eloff 5y ago

It's cheaper still to build barriers, especially since the sea level rise is gradual. It's just that if you think of what we're going to spend worldwide to mitigate the harms of sea level rise, it seems incredibly stupid to be burning subsidized fossil fuels. That's without even factoring in the other problems climate change will bring. A proper carbon taxing scheme with tariffs on countries that don't play along would make so much sense. One way or another the bill will be paid. Nature is a relentless debt collector.

trhway 5y ago
>It's cheaper still to build barriers for some definition of cheaper. For full cost you need to factor in political costs of implementing such a a collective action as well as opportunity costs. And once built it needs to be maintained. It requires continuous involvement into political fight to insure that the maintenance is happening to avoid Katrina type situations. The implicit threat of non-maintenance becomes a tool of political blackmail and pressure. It makes for high-risk business environment which is just bad for business. >it seems incredibly stupid to be burning subsidized fossil fuels. well, removing the subsidies and decreasing the fossil fuel burn is an immediately available very low cost collective action to slow climate change and delay water rise... We can see how it's been going so far. >A proper carbon taxing scheme with tariffs on countries that don't play along would make so much sense. Russia for example has all the sanctions and tariffs (and when there is no tariff imposed from outside, Russia usually takes care about that by having self-inflicted inside tariff there :) so it is hard to make much more, and Russia is anyway going full-steam into that warmer future (the global warming was taught in middle school even back in 198x in USSR) pumping oil and gas like crazy. Many Russian territories are becoming much more conductive for living and doing agriculture there. Short of WWIII there is not much can be done here (and Russia is actively building bases in the North and Far East as well as new strategic weapons system - the point is that they don't bet much on global international cooperation :). I'm pointing at Russia because i know it better than other countries, and of course it may be that Russia is large outlier, yet i somehow think that a number of other countries are also not betting much on successful global international cooperation in particular when it comes to global warming.