3 ms·
What is your point? That it could somehow be more economically worthwhile to build a levy than deal with the underlying cause to the ocean rising? If that's cor
by mikegioia 11y ago
What is your point? That it could somehow be more economically worthwhile to build a levy than deal with the underlying cause to the ocean rising? If that's correct than you honestly have 0 business weighing in on this decision in any way. At what point in your world does it become "economically viable" to save civilization?
- Asbostos 11y agoThere's a cost to preventing it and a cost to protecting ourselves from it. One of them must be cheaper. We already make seawalls to protect against tsunamis rather than somehow trying to weld all the fault lines back together. That's because it's cheaper and serves the same goal.
- mikegioia 11y agoThat's only if the goal is to stop the water from breaching the land, though. That should not be the goal, and if it is, at what point does the goal finally become preventing the water from rising in the first place?
- Asbostos 11y agoMikegioia - what harm is sea level rise if it doesn't cover our valuable land? Covering the land is the only reason we're worried about it.
- mikegioia 11y agoI think the harm is that it would continue to rise and we still haven't done anything to treat the underlying cause. Then you enter an arms race by building levys/dams/dikes and we're still just treating the symptoms.
- Asbostos 11y agoThat can just buy you time to move inland. We'll always have places to go to, just won't want to move too fast.
- calinet6 11y agoThere's also a significant unknown cost from the level of uncertainty surrounding the effect of climate change. It could be drastic, or it could be mild. We don't know, but we're rolling the dice anyway due to inaction.