Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions into Waterlogged Miami?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions into Waterlogged Miami?

#71

Post by zzzzzzzza »

scarmig wrote: post #30
sbierwagen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general problem with attempting to profit from global warming is that you end up having to short the entire financial system, and it's tough to make money from the idea of "everything stops working".

Realistically, both Canada and Russia are countries likely to be net beneficiaries of global warming. Taxes won't have to be increased as much to deal with the effects; more taxes will be generated from increased agricultural productivity; and heating costs will decrease. Must be some way to hedge your personal losses from global warming with investments there.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/oct/14/thawing-perma... maybe not so much in the short-medium term.

Re: Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions into Waterlogged Miami?

#72

Post by mistermann »

dv_dt wrote: post #70
pixl97 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Climate change isn't the only thing that increases the probability. Over the long term they may eventually be the largest cause, but currently I would cite many, many other issues. Sea walls, land use changes, water pumping, loss of wetlands all affect the severity of tides. All these things could be changed to avoid issues while completely ignoring climate change for now.... Yet they do nothing. Ocean bathymetry is…

Sure thing, all the other states you mention speak to the capacity of the shoreline to absorb some amount of water increase (from any source). Independently, if the frequency and intensity of flooding events is predicted to increase in the future, one would think that long term zoning regulations to preserve or increase the capacity of the shore to absorb flooding would be cheaper than, fix-it-quick with big infrastr…

...assuming something WILL have to be done. If we can continue to muddle through for 100-200 years, it isn't cheaper to fix it now.

Re: Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions into Waterlogged Miami?

#73

Post by hackuser »

kls wrote: post #43
xapata wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article mentions king tides and cites a report [0] that the floods are getting worse. [0] http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/news-events/press-releases/2016/n...

The floods are worse this year because we have a combination of El Nino weakening the gulf stream which in a normal year has some effect on pushing tides longitudinal as well as flattening them and King tides which are caused by a lunar event, not anything terrestrial. It is an unusually event for sure but has historically happened before. This is a combination of two natural phenomena, nothing more nothing less. It…

> Climate change is not contributing to the current situation of Miami being flooded

What is that based on?

> The floods are worse this year ...

Everyone in the article is talking about long-term increases in sea level rise and flooding.

* a University of Miami study reporting that Miami Beach has seen a 200 percent increase in flooding in the last decade

* current (conservative) estimates predict a three-foot rise over the next 100 years

* The city is already elevating its roads

* the city’s new hydraulic pumps, installed as a result of initiatives by Miami Beach’s mayor Philip Levine

* Steps are being taken, buildings are being raised

* what they’re [developers are] doing now is elevating the building at a minimum of 3 feet

* The water will start coming up from the floor,” he [Alan Faena] said. “There’s not much we can do. That’s the reality.”

* the Rockefeller Foundation recently funded Miami's “resilience officer,” the first of many in what the foundation expects to be a global array to help organize various cities' responses

Re: Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions into Waterlogged Miami?

#74

Post by hackuser »

mistermann wrote: post #72
dv_dt wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure thing, all the other states you mention speak to the capacity of the shoreline to absorb some amount of water increase (from any source). Independently, if the frequency and intensity of flooding events is predicted to increase in the future, one would think that long term zoning regulations to preserve or increase the capacity of the shore to absorb flooding would be cheaper than, fix-it-quick with big infrastr…

...assuming something WILL have to be done. If we can continue to muddle through for 100-200 years, it isn't cheaper to fix it now.

> If we can continue to muddle through for 100-200 years

That is wishful thinking. The clear consensus is that we can't, and that it's not a close call.

Re: Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions into Waterlogged Miami?

#76

Post by Avshalom »

bpicolo wrote: post #65
tqkxzugoaupvwqr wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t Florida plagued by alligators? A Venice-like canal city and alligators make for an interesting mix.

Alligators are mostly just fresh water. They can sort of survive brackish / a bit of salt but they're not as versatile as crocs.

Unfortunately that opens the door for invasive saltwater crocodiles. While alligators are mostly super chill crocs are total dick bags.

Re: Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions into Waterlogged Miami?

#78

Post by pkituu »

cr0sh wrote: post #16
adevine wrote: post #6

The answer to this question is quite simple, and the two choice sentences from the article: "And their time frame is what, five years? How do you reconcile those two things: It’s a 100-year problem and a five-year investment cycle." The answer is simply that the private equity firm does not account for the long term, but that the city of Miami Beach will have to—soon. And that is fundamentally what makes climate chan…

> And that is fundamentally what makes climate change so difficult to deal with. The economic incentives, which only really look 5-10-15 years out, can't respond to consequences that are 50-100 years out, and by then it's really too late. On the global level (let's say 50-100 years out), do you think we as a species are headed toward an "Easter Island" effect, where we "whistle past the graveyard" and assume everythi…

http://www.lunarbaboon.com/comics/imminent.html

Re: Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions into Waterlogged Miami?

#79

Post by bpicolo »

Avshalom wrote: post #76
bpicolo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alligators are mostly just fresh water. They can sort of survive brackish / a bit of salt but they're not as versatile as crocs.

Unfortunately that opens the door for invasive saltwater crocodiles. While alligators are mostly super chill crocs are total dick bags.

Yeah. If I remember right there were a couple reports of crocs in South Florida over the years, though certainly no major issue

Re: Why Are Developers Still Pouring Billions into Waterlogged Miami?

#80

Post by roel_v »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #45

I wonder if this could be considered an opportunity. Let's say for the sake of argument that Miami Beach will be gone 20 - 50 years, subsumed by rising sea levels. Can you build a structure now, while it is above sea level, that in a post sea level rise will be really nice? First suspend the building on pylons that are sunk all the way down to bedrock, second design it so that as an "island" it has great access, an e…

How could such a thing be financed? If your value proposition is 'I have this apartment for sale/rent that's twice as expensive as the others, but in 20 years time you'll have dry feet' - I'm not sure who would buy such a thing. Preppers would move to the boondocks in Montana anyway.
Post reply on HN