31–40 of 223 posts
Hurricane Katrina was estimated to have over $200 billion in losses—if that's true, it seems like there should be more investment in this type of infrastructure.
Why? When you can use disaster capitalism and profit on the "volatility" provided by such events?
It's so crazy to me that everyone in vulnerable places--Tokyo and Houston in the article for example--are happy to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to put a bandaid on their local climate change problems. It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it. In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that thing…
yet everyone there still drives everywhere spewing carbon into their own air with every trip This. Every single person who claims they believe global climate change is a very serious, and man-made, problem absolutely should be taking personal steps now to address it. Telecommuting is a thing. Home-solar is a thing. Electric cars are a thing. Quit telling _others_ to solve the problems, and start doing it personally,…
Just because you recognize that your personal actions won't affect the outcome as it pertains to you doesn't mean you can't recognize that the personal actions of a large number of other people will affect the outcome as it pertains to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very likely that local band-aids are the most effective way to deal with this. Your train example is a pretty good one, but you've mixed up the metaphor. Here, "stepping out of the way" = mass migrations out of coastal cities. "A mechanized winch that temporarily lifts us over the train" = flood control projects like in Tokyo, Houston, Venice, or the Netherlands. "Calling the train company and asking them to sto…
Adaptation without mitigation will not be effective as the impacts worsen. Uncapped emissions and business as usual scenarios will cause outcomes that we will not be able to build ourselves out of. We must reduce emissions and push for sustainable infrastructure and solutions, now. We must adapt and we must also mitigate. Only through the combination of both efforts and through our determination and willingness to le…
Most people don't want to die, and so we have a self-interested argument for not destroying our environment. But we're at the top of the food chain - well before there's a lasting impact on the earth's ability to sustain life, we'll all be dead. It's the height of hubris to believe we have the ability to effect lasting change on the earth's environment that won't disappear once we do.
It's so crazy to me that everyone in vulnerable places--Tokyo and Houston in the article for example--are happy to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to put a bandaid on their local climate change problems. It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it. In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that thing…
yet everyone there still drives everywhere spewing carbon into their own air with every trip This. Every single person who claims they believe global climate change is a very serious, and man-made, problem absolutely should be taking personal steps now to address it. Telecommuting is a thing. Home-solar is a thing. Electric cars are a thing. Quit telling _others_ to solve the problems, and start doing it personally,…
Even as a kid, I laughed at the absurdity of that campaign. Of course it had zero effect.
Something that will work is to tax pollution, i.e. a carbon tax. Making it more expensive will do far more to influence behavior away from it than any marketing campaign. And besides, it raises spending money for the government, too.
Using the tax system to "internalize the externalities" (economist jargon) is an efficient and effective way to do it.
It's so crazy to me that everyone in vulnerable places--Tokyo and Houston in the article for example--are happy to spend hundreds of millions, even billions, to put a bandaid on their local climate change problems. It seems like they all acknowledge the reality and danger of climate change and are willing to spend money on it. In TFA Houston wants $400 million to build a reservoir. They seem to acknowledge that thing…
I may not understand the scope of this project, but when I read the $2 billion, my thought was "wow that's cheap!" Consider the Big Dig or the current Seattle tunnel, at $14B+ and $3B+ respectively.
To be fair, nobody would have undertaken the Big Dig if the true cost were known up-front. And a debt that's 200% GDP is a unique circumstance.
That's great if you're paid to model the traffic but probably not so great if you now have to pay the added expenses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Adaptation without mitigation will not be effective as the impacts worsen. Uncapped emissions and business as usual scenarios will cause outcomes that we will not be able to build ourselves out of. We must reduce emissions and push for sustainable infrastructure and solutions, now. We must adapt and we must also mitigate. Only through the combination of both efforts and through our determination and willingness to le…
Nah, the problem is self-limiting. If global warming reduces the carrying capacity of the environment, people will die. Dead people don't use resources; their bodies are returned to the environment by decomposers, where they will provide fertilizer for trees and other plants, which will grow even more abundantly because of the enhanced CO2 levels. Eventually the earth reaches a new equilibrium at a somewhat higher te…