6 ms·

Planning to sink: What happens if Kiribati drowns?

30 points by rosser 12y ago

gambiting 12y ago
"“If you have everything but land – if you have a population that is displaced – whether that allows you to be a state is a novel question,”" Well, I can think of our own example - Poland has been forcibly taken and split into three parts during late 18th century, by Russia, Prussia(Germany) and Austria. For nearly 20 years there was no such country as Poland on the map, and people who lived on the lands of former Poland were forbidden from even speaking Polish. Yet the entire country has survived - we had a government and an army which both operated from other countries, until finally we were given little independence back in 1807 - but even after that Russia has controlled majority of the land here. Fast forward 200 years - Poland is a large country in the centre of Europe, despite having disappeared from every map for more than two decades at one point. So based on that I would say that yes, there can be a nation without land.
- lmm 12y ago
  > For nearly 20 years there was no such country as Poland on the map, and people who lived on the lands of former Poland were forbidden from even speaking Polish. Sounds like Poland didn't exist at that time then, if there weren't even people speaking the language. To my mind a more relevant example would be various governments-in-exile. Wasn't there a case during WWII where a Canadian(?) hospital was redesignated as the territory as one of the occupied countries, so that a princess(?) born there could be legally born on native soil?
  - pests 12y ago
    Just because speaking Polish is prohibited doesn't mean it wasn't spoken.
  - gambiting 12y ago
    >>Sounds like Poland didn't exist at that time then, if there weren't even people speaking the language. Of course there were, they just had to do it at home, in secret. My point is, that the entire nation survived even though for two decades they couldn't even identify as Polish in public. And yes, we also had a government in exile during that time. Heck, we also had a government in exile during communist rule in Poland(1945-1989), which based its operations in London.
    - lmm 12y ago
      > My point is, that the entire nation survived even though for two decades they couldn't even identify as Polish in public. How do you distinguish between a nation surviving, and a new nation being founded with the same name?
      - gambiting 12y ago
        Well it's not like the Russians or the Prussians suddenly decided they wanted to start Poland again - it must have been Polish people who wanted that, so I think it's quite clear it was Polish people "surviving" long enough to see their country come back. I think new nation would apply if the people starting it had nothing to do with the original citizens? Like if someone wanted to create a country of Sparta now - it's not Spartans surviving, it's just a new country with an old name.
        GFischer 12y ago
        Your Sparta analogy has a real-world example in Macedonia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute "Citing historical and territorial concerns resulting from the ambiguity between the Republic of Macedonia, the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia and the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon which falls mostly within Greek Macedonia, Greece opposes the use of the name "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia without a geographical qualifier, supporting a compound name such as "Northern Macedonia" for use by all and for all purposes" "..millions of ethnic Greeks identify themselves as Macedonians, unrelated to the Slavic people who are associated with the Republic of Macedonia, Greece further objects to the use of the term "Macedonian" for the neighboring country's largest ethnic group and its language. The Republic of Macedonia is accused of appropriating symbols and figures that are historically considered part of Greek culture such as the Vergina Sun and Alexander the Great"
  - arethuza 12y ago
    Apparently the Canadian government didn't have to make the maternity ward Netherlands territory - they simply had to make it "not Canada": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Netherlands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Nether...
  - Mvandenbergh 12y ago
    The state of Poland didn't exist but Poles as a people, as a group with a distinct culture, language, and idea of themselves as a group did. So when they were able to, the Polish people re-constituted a state in which to live. That doesn't mean that the state of Poland existed in those years. Agreed that governments in exile are a better example.
iwwr 12y ago
What's preventing people from moving onto stilt houses or even large floating seasteads? The big asset of Kiribati is their extensive EEZ which guarantees income from fishing or other activities (mining, drilling etc). You can chain together steel and concrete pontoons, add soil on top all without terrafirma. That could even be funded by the industrialized nations that are supposedly responsible for the sea level rise (a tiny cost, compared to actually cutting emissions).
- dalke 12y ago
  I can think of a few likely problems. The lack of surface area would make it harder to get fresh water; something that's already difficult. One of the main exports is copra, but I doubt that growing coconut trees on a platform will be economically worthwhile. The same holds for other agriculture currently on the island. (Sea level rise would also affect aquaculture in the lagoons, but I can't guess if it would be better or worse.) I expect it will be extremely expensive to raise the two international airports and over a dozen domestic ones. Assuming intense agriculture at 0.25 acres per person (that's 8x the current population density) implies 100 sq. km of platform area. I see that sea docks cost around $30/sq. foot. That's just a bare dock, without soil, so let's say $50/sq. ft. "furnished" and at wholesale pricing. (I suspect I'm far under the actual price.) That's roughly $50 billion, or almost 20x the country's GDP. On top of that, add maintenance costs. I can't begin to estimate that.
  - iwwr 12y ago
    How much would that be if it's a concrete platform with polystyrene on the inside for buoyancy?
    - dalke 12y ago
      And able to stand up to the occasional typhoon? I have no idea. The point of my exercise was to establish a minimum cost, to show why the idea isn't economically practical. Japan's Mega-float cost $150 million in 1999 for 1km x 60 meters. It was designed as a floating airport for use in a protected bay. The floating airport proposal ("Floatport") for San Diego was estimated at $10-$30 billion. Both show that my $50 billion estimate is very low. Then again, you don't actually need floating structures. As an alternative estimate, a cubic meter of soil is about $35. The cost of 1 meter of soil spread across 100 sq. km is $3.5 billion, plus shipping. I see no way to get lower than that number. I see many way to get a lot higher.
ghostDancer 12y ago
The Order of Malta has no territories except some buildings and no "real" citizens and is semi recognized like a country, more by tradition than other things, with a big difference that Kiribati has citizens that should be relocated. The loss of their territories is a not so natural disaster. I think is more a matter of international willing, if they will to recognize it and maintain the status of Kiribati.
- riffraff 12y ago
  how is the order of malta "semi recognized like a country" ?
  - LordIllidan 12y ago
    It retained its sovereignty. Quoting from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Mal... Although this state came to an end with the ejection of the Order from Malta by Napoleon Bonaparte, the Order as such survived. It retains its claims of sovereignty under international law and has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations.
  - ghostDancer 12y ago
    They still issue passports and have embassadors and receive from other countries, they don't have even proper citizens, but they get treatment like they were a real country.
- pacofvf 12y ago
  The same happens to the Holy See, not to be confused with the Vatican City. The Holy See technically doesn't have territory nor citizens although is recognized as a sovereign country.
Evgeny 12y ago
Related: Paradise almost lost: Maldives seek to buy a new homeland http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-... And a longer story on Kiribati Drowning Kiribati http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/169064-drowning-kiribati http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/169064-drowning...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
knz42 12y ago
"“If you have everything but land – if you have a population that is displaced – whether that allows you to be a state is a novel question,”" Jews would have disagreed that this is a novel question -- for them the question has been about for around 2000 years if not more.
- masklinn 12y ago
  2600 years, according to wikipedia the Diaspora started with the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah by Babylone (started in 597BCE and ended with the destruction of the first temple in 586BCE), although a numbers of jews were already in exile since the conquest of the Kingdom of Israel in 722BCE by Assyria.
- wlievens 12y ago
  State and Nation are not the same.
- madaxe_again 12y ago
  No, it IS a novel question, and it has yet to be answered. You talk as though Israel is a done deal, when the ongoing situation suggests anything but. Why do you need to do political astro-turfing for Israel on a totally unrelated thread?
  - gadders 12y ago
    I wouldn't call it astro-turfing. For a long time, Israel was a race/people without a homeland. You could maybe say the Palestinians are in that state now as well.
    - 67726e 12y ago
      I sure as shit would call it that.
  - sp332 12y ago
    Just because it doesn't have a definite answer doesn't mean it's a novel question. Otherwise P ?= NP would still be a "novel question".
gd1 12y ago
Meanwhile, in reality: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growin... "Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking. Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment. The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images."
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  Using land reclamation to contest climate change isn't much different than contesting it based on your fridge being cold.
  - gd1 12y ago
    Whatever you say buddy. The PBS article says that "The nation of Kiribati, made up of 33 tiny islands far out in the Pacific Ocean, is getting smaller". It isn't.
  - Grue3 12y ago
    Except the climate change wasn't posed as the problem. The lack of land was. And land reclamation is a great way to contest lack of land.
- josho 12y ago
  Wow, that is incredibly selective quoting! From the same article "Sea levels are obviously rising...the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate". The article describes that in the short term, bigger waves are leaving more sediment expanding the island's area—but, the islands are not raising up, so sea level rise will (and already has) displaced people from these islands. My mother has been to Kiribati, she saw first hand portions that have been lost to the sea. The reality is clear if you simply open your eyes and look.
  - 12y ago

30 points by rosser 12y ago

"“If you have everything but land – if you have a population that is displaced – whether that allows you to be a state is a novel question,”" Well, I can think of our own example - Poland has been forcibly taken and split into three parts during late 18th century, by Russia, Prussia(Germany) and Austria. For nearly 20 years there was no such country as Poland on the map, and people who lived on the lands of former Poland were forbidden from even speaking Polish. Yet the entire country has survived - we had a government and an army which both operated from other countries, until finally we were given little independence back in 1807 - but even after that Russia has controlled majority of the land here. Fast forward 200 years - Poland is a large country in the centre of Europe, despite having disappeared from every map for more than two decades at one point. So based on that I would say that yes, there can be a nation without land.

lmm 12y ago
> For nearly 20 years there was no such country as Poland on the map, and people who lived on the lands of former Poland were forbidden from even speaking Polish. Sounds like Poland didn't exist at that time then, if there weren't even people speaking the language. To my mind a more relevant example would be various governments-in-exile. Wasn't there a case during WWII where a Canadian(?) hospital was redesignated as the territory as one of the occupied countries, so that a princess(?) born there could be legally born on native soil?
- pests 12y ago
  Just because speaking Polish is prohibited doesn't mean it wasn't spoken.
- gambiting 12y ago
  >>Sounds like Poland didn't exist at that time then, if there weren't even people speaking the language. Of course there were, they just had to do it at home, in secret. My point is, that the entire nation survived even though for two decades they couldn't even identify as Polish in public. And yes, we also had a government in exile during that time. Heck, we also had a government in exile during communist rule in Poland(1945-1989), which based its operations in London.
  - lmm 12y ago
    > My point is, that the entire nation survived even though for two decades they couldn't even identify as Polish in public. How do you distinguish between a nation surviving, and a new nation being founded with the same name?
    - gambiting 12y ago
      Well it's not like the Russians or the Prussians suddenly decided they wanted to start Poland again - it must have been Polish people who wanted that, so I think it's quite clear it was Polish people "surviving" long enough to see their country come back. I think new nation would apply if the people starting it had nothing to do with the original citizens? Like if someone wanted to create a country of Sparta now - it's not Spartans surviving, it's just a new country with an old name.
      - GFischer 12y ago
        Your Sparta analogy has a real-world example in Macedonia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_naming_dispute "Citing historical and territorial concerns resulting from the ambiguity between the Republic of Macedonia, the adjacent Greek region of Macedonia and the ancient Greek kingdom of Macedon which falls mostly within Greek Macedonia, Greece opposes the use of the name "Macedonia" by the Republic of Macedonia without a geographical qualifier, supporting a compound name such as "Northern Macedonia" for use by all and for all purposes" "..millions of ethnic Greeks identify themselves as Macedonians, unrelated to the Slavic people who are associated with the Republic of Macedonia, Greece further objects to the use of the term "Macedonian" for the neighboring country's largest ethnic group and its language. The Republic of Macedonia is accused of appropriating symbols and figures that are historically considered part of Greek culture such as the Vergina Sun and Alexander the Great"
- arethuza 12y ago
  Apparently the Canadian government didn't have to make the maternity ward Netherlands territory - they simply had to make it "not Canada": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Netherlands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Margriet_of_the_Nether...
- Mvandenbergh 12y ago
  The state of Poland didn't exist but Poles as a people, as a group with a distinct culture, language, and idea of themselves as a group did. So when they were able to, the Polish people re-constituted a state in which to live. That doesn't mean that the state of Poland existed in those years. Agreed that governments in exile are a better example.

iwwr 12y ago

What's preventing people from moving onto stilt houses or even large floating seasteads? The big asset of Kiribati is their extensive EEZ which guarantees income from fishing or other activities (mining, drilling etc). You can chain together steel and concrete pontoons, add soil on top all without terrafirma. That could even be funded by the industrialized nations that are supposedly responsible for the sea level rise (a tiny cost, compared to actually cutting emissions).

dalke 12y ago
I can think of a few likely problems. The lack of surface area would make it harder to get fresh water; something that's already difficult. One of the main exports is copra, but I doubt that growing coconut trees on a platform will be economically worthwhile. The same holds for other agriculture currently on the island. (Sea level rise would also affect aquaculture in the lagoons, but I can't guess if it would be better or worse.) I expect it will be extremely expensive to raise the two international airports and over a dozen domestic ones. Assuming intense agriculture at 0.25 acres per person (that's 8x the current population density) implies 100 sq. km of platform area. I see that sea docks cost around $30/sq. foot. That's just a bare dock, without soil, so let's say $50/sq. ft. "furnished" and at wholesale pricing. (I suspect I'm far under the actual price.) That's roughly $50 billion, or almost 20x the country's GDP. On top of that, add maintenance costs. I can't begin to estimate that.
- iwwr 12y ago
  How much would that be if it's a concrete platform with polystyrene on the inside for buoyancy?
  - dalke 12y ago
    And able to stand up to the occasional typhoon? I have no idea. The point of my exercise was to establish a minimum cost, to show why the idea isn't economically practical. Japan's Mega-float cost $150 million in 1999 for 1km x 60 meters. It was designed as a floating airport for use in a protected bay. The floating airport proposal ("Floatport") for San Diego was estimated at $10-$30 billion. Both show that my $50 billion estimate is very low. Then again, you don't actually need floating structures. As an alternative estimate, a cubic meter of soil is about $35. The cost of 1 meter of soil spread across 100 sq. km is $3.5 billion, plus shipping. I see no way to get lower than that number. I see many way to get a lot higher.

ghostDancer 12y ago

The Order of Malta has no territories except some buildings and no "real" citizens and is semi recognized like a country, more by tradition than other things, with a big difference that Kiribati has citizens that should be relocated. The loss of their territories is a not so natural disaster. I think is more a matter of international willing, if they will to recognize it and maintain the status of Kiribati.

riffraff 12y ago
how is the order of malta "semi recognized like a country" ?
- LordIllidan 12y ago
  It retained its sovereignty. Quoting from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Mal... Although this state came to an end with the ejection of the Order from Malta by Napoleon Bonaparte, the Order as such survived. It retains its claims of sovereignty under international law and has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations.
- ghostDancer 12y ago
  They still issue passports and have embassadors and receive from other countries, they don't have even proper citizens, but they get treatment like they were a real country.
pacofvf 12y ago
The same happens to the Holy See, not to be confused with the Vatican City. The Holy See technically doesn't have territory nor citizens although is recognized as a sovereign country.

Evgeny 12y ago

Related: Paradise almost lost: Maldives seek to buy a new homeland http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-climate-change http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/nov/10/maldives-... And a longer story on Kiribati Drowning Kiribati http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/169064-drowning-kiribati http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/169064-drowning...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

knz42 12y ago

"“If you have everything but land – if you have a population that is displaced – whether that allows you to be a state is a novel question,”" Jews would have disagreed that this is a novel question -- for them the question has been about for around 2000 years if not more.

masklinn 12y ago
2600 years, according to wikipedia the Diaspora started with the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah by Babylone (started in 597BCE and ended with the destruction of the first temple in 586BCE), although a numbers of jews were already in exile since the conquest of the Kingdom of Israel in 722BCE by Assyria.
wlievens 12y ago
State and Nation are not the same.
madaxe_again 12y ago
No, it IS a novel question, and it has yet to be answered. You talk as though Israel is a done deal, when the ongoing situation suggests anything but. Why do you need to do political astro-turfing for Israel on a totally unrelated thread?
- gadders 12y ago
  I wouldn't call it astro-turfing. For a long time, Israel was a race/people without a homeland. You could maybe say the Palestinians are in that state now as well.
  - 67726e 12y ago
    I sure as shit would call it that.
- sp332 12y ago
  Just because it doesn't have a definite answer doesn't mean it's a novel question. Otherwise P ?= NP would still be a "novel question".

gd1 12y ago

Meanwhile, in reality: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growin... "Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking. Islands in Tuvalu, Kiribati and the Federated States of Micronesia are among those which have grown, largely due to coral debris, land reclamation and sediment. The findings, published in the magazine New Scientist, were gathered by comparing changes to 27 Pacific islands over the last 20 to 60 years using historical aerial photos and satellite images."

ceejayoz 12y ago
Using land reclamation to contest climate change isn't much different than contesting it based on your fridge being cold.
- gd1 12y ago
  Whatever you say buddy. The PBS article says that "The nation of Kiribati, made up of 33 tiny islands far out in the Pacific Ocean, is getting smaller". It isn't.
- Grue3 12y ago
  Except the climate change wasn't posed as the problem. The lack of land was. And land reclamation is a great way to contest lack of land.
josho 12y ago
Wow, that is incredibly selective quoting! From the same article "Sea levels are obviously rising...the key problem is that sea level rise is likely to accelerate". The article describes that in the short term, bigger waves are leaving more sediment expanding the island's area—but, the islands are not raising up, so sea level rise will (and already has) displaced people from these islands. My mother has been to Kiribati, she saw first hand portions that have been lost to the sea. The reality is clear if you simply open your eyes and look.
- 12y ago