2 ms·
No, sorry, 50cm per 100 years is too little. It should be 70cm. The "extreme expenditure" to build dikes is a lot less than the expenditure to not just stop, b
by mseebach 13y ago
No, sorry, 50cm per 100 years is too little. It should be 70cm.
The "extreme expenditure" to build dikes is a lot less than the expenditure to not just stop, but revert global warming. Nobody knows if it's even possible, so we might end up wasting all that money and then still having to build dikes.