3 ms·

Do we know if the cost to the economy of adapting to greener standards would cost more than supporting the adaptation of the poor to the new warmer world? I hav

Do we know if the cost to the economy of adapting to greener standards would cost more than supporting the adaptation of the poor to the new warmer world? I have often wondered if it just makes more sense to incentivize people to not live right on the places most likely to flood and hurricane? (and earthquake for that matter). just to stave off likely claims I am not saying we should prioritize the economy over people, but I am saying we should consider if we can positively address the catastrophe both more effectively (remove risk) and less drastically by directly addressing where people live.

pietrovismara 5y ago
Before making any suggestion, think if you would like it applied to you. If the answer is no, I call bullshit. First, because it is highly unfair and elitist, second because there's no reason to think that the "poors" would accept it any better than you would.
- maerF0x0 5y ago
  I, and i think especially more poor people, would be willing to relocate to a better region if adequately compensated. I'm not calling for just telling people they cannot in low lying coastal places, but basically incentivizing a lot, very fairly, and telling the others they're now out of scope for emergency response (but retain their freedom of movement). I've had similar thoughts about how we (as humanity) tend to build big cities on some of the most fertile land just because agricultural success drew people proximally to those lands. But then we pave over fertile fields to put up offices that house people who just work on computers... We get sucked into local maxima and find it uneconomical to move out of it (or often an organizational issue where all have to move to not have massive first mover risks)
sofixa 5y ago
> I have often wondered if it just makes more sense to incentivize people to not live right on the places most likely to flood and hurricane? (and earthquake for that matter But that's not all the dangers. The heat dome over the Pacific Northwest this summer isn't something that can accurately be predicted.

pietrovismara 5y ago

Before making any suggestion, think if you would like it applied to you. If the answer is no, I call bullshit. First, because it is highly unfair and elitist, second because there's no reason to think that the "poors" would accept it any better than you would.

maerF0x0 5y ago
I, and i think especially more poor people, would be willing to relocate to a better region if adequately compensated. I'm not calling for just telling people they cannot in low lying coastal places, but basically incentivizing a lot, very fairly, and telling the others they're now out of scope for emergency response (but retain their freedom of movement). I've had similar thoughts about how we (as humanity) tend to build big cities on some of the most fertile land just because agricultural success drew people proximally to those lands. But then we pave over fertile fields to put up offices that house people who just work on computers... We get sucked into local maxima and find it uneconomical to move out of it (or often an organizational issue where all have to move to not have massive first mover risks)

sofixa 5y ago

> I have often wondered if it just makes more sense to incentivize people to not live right on the places most likely to flood and hurricane? (and earthquake for that matter But that's not all the dangers. The heat dome over the Pacific Northwest this summer isn't something that can accurately be predicted.