3 ms·

You misunderstand the politics, and how the problem will manifest. Imagine: a terrible storm hits New Jersey and dozens of seaside towns are damaged, some of wh

You misunderstand the politics, and how the problem will manifest. Imagine: a terrible storm hits New Jersey and dozens of seaside towns are damaged, some of which are nearly destroyed. The USA has various government programs in place to help people effected by natural disasters. Therefore these programs should mobilize and help these people. But what form should the help take? Should the government pay to rebuild the homes exactly where they were, or should the government pay to relocate those people somewhere further inland? Have you looked at a map of North Carolina or New Jersey? Please notice that both states have long, thin ribbons of land that run along the coast. Many people live on these ribbons of land, and their homes are vulnerable to rising sea levels. What shape should government policy take over the next 100 years? Should we say "We will never retreat one centimeter: we will rebuild in the same spot after every storm." Or should we say: "Defending these thin ribbons of land is too expensive, so we will pay to relocate these people further inland"? If the USA wanted to spend a vast treasure on the defense of coastal barriers, it could do what the Dutch have done, and build an immense system of dykes to defend its east and west coast. The cost would be staggering, truly unimaginable. The coasts of the USA are much greater than the coast of the Netherlands (especially if the USA also decided that "We will never retreat one centimeter" also applied to Alaska). If such a colossal project was to be in any way affordable, its construction would have to be stretched out over 100 years, so the annual cost would be manageable. And therefore, we would have to start working on it now, not when rising oceans become "a /real/ problem with consequences everyone can immediately feel".

jheriko 13y ago
you raise some interesting points but i think you are quite misguided - despite having the right kind of idea imo. the fact that you use words like politics and expensive tells me we are imagining very different scenarios and consequences... what i mean by 'real problem with consequences you can feel' is unavoidable stuff where /nature/ forces you to pay attention or die. i.e. you must respond to the situation because it is vital for survival and doing actual harm to you whilst you do not. the fact that a flood is almost certainly going to happen tomorrow might make me run away - the flood happening right now forces me to run or die. /run or die/ that is what i am talking about. not freedom of choice but unavoidable force of nature. i think that is what it will take for people to do something - and it will need to happen to most of us if not all... i don't think thats a good thing. however i have a lot of faith in how creative and constructive people are when they are fighting for survival. cost and resources become irrelevant if they exist - if you need money (and you won't) then you will steal it because its preferable to dying... you will make a damned good effort too. the real limiting factors will be time vs. manpower (will we finish before we die - will we die trying?) and feasibility (i.e. does the universe allow it at all). of course we may also just let ourselves die... its a very real possibility that we end ourselves through the fallout from climate change. as an aside one of the biggest problems for climate change proponents, i feel, is that predictions are constantly wrong and have been historically. the situation you describe there i feel is very flawed... whilst it might be a good prediction is it really the thing to worry about? can you convince me of this? a classic case to point at in this regard is the recent global dimming due to particulates in the atmosphere - which have caused more problems where people actually have been dying and living a lower quality of life as a result of climate change. we are already not fixing these problems and ignoring them. people are actually dying today because of this problem - but nowhere near enough for people to seriously care - melting ice (nearly harmless artic ice as well which will not cause sea levels to rise appreciably if at all) is so very far away from that level of seriousness... let alone a survival scenario. ... long :I
- dandelany 13y ago
  How, exactly, is it "misguided" to talk about politics and policy changes to mitigate the effects long before we reach the "run or die" stage? It's the only way to get things done currently. You're saying we should wait until the floodwater is at our ankles and only then do something?

jheriko 13y ago

you raise some interesting points but i think you are quite misguided - despite having the right kind of idea imo. the fact that you use words like politics and expensive tells me we are imagining very different scenarios and consequences... what i mean by 'real problem with consequences you can feel' is unavoidable stuff where /nature/ forces you to pay attention or die. i.e. you must respond to the situation because it is vital for survival and doing actual harm to you whilst you do not. the fact that a flood is almost certainly going to happen tomorrow might make me run away - the flood happening right now forces me to run or die. /run or die/ that is what i am talking about. not freedom of choice but unavoidable force of nature. i think that is what it will take for people to do something - and it will need to happen to most of us if not all... i don't think thats a good thing. however i have a lot of faith in how creative and constructive people are when they are fighting for survival. cost and resources become irrelevant if they exist - if you need money (and you won't) then you will steal it because its preferable to dying... you will make a damned good effort too. the real limiting factors will be time vs. manpower (will we finish before we die - will we die trying?) and feasibility (i.e. does the universe allow it at all). of course we may also just let ourselves die... its a very real possibility that we end ourselves through the fallout from climate change. as an aside one of the biggest problems for climate change proponents, i feel, is that predictions are constantly wrong and have been historically. the situation you describe there i feel is very flawed... whilst it might be a good prediction is it really the thing to worry about? can you convince me of this? a classic case to point at in this regard is the recent global dimming due to particulates in the atmosphere - which have caused more problems where people actually have been dying and living a lower quality of life as a result of climate change. we are already not fixing these problems and ignoring them. people are actually dying today because of this problem - but nowhere near enough for people to seriously care - melting ice (nearly harmless artic ice as well which will not cause sea levels to rise appreciably if at all) is so very far away from that level of seriousness... let alone a survival scenario. ... long :I

dandelany 13y ago
How, exactly, is it "misguided" to talk about politics and policy changes to mitigate the effects long before we reach the "run or die" stage? It's the only way to get things done currently. You're saying we should wait until the floodwater is at our ankles and only then do something?