Tokyo Is Preparing for Floods ‘Beyond Anything We’ve Seen’

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 10:57 PM UTC

yongjik wrote: post #76

nostrademons wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

LOL. Sigh. Why does global warming attract this particular brand of sophistry all the time? "President, what's your solution to the North Korean nukes?" "Nothing to worry: the problem is self-limiting. If they start a nuclear war, billions will die, and then the survivors will be too poor to build any more nuclear weapons, so naturally there will be no more nuclear wars." "But what about Puerto Rico? When are the aid…

Post by vacri » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 11:01 PM UTC

dghughes wrote: post #77

KGIII wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Big Dig may have been closer to the budget, except it kept getting changed. An example would be that they initially planned on shutting down certain routes until a politician decided to announce that traffic flow would not be disrupted. 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.

But that indicates the project was not planned well since change requests for such a large project would have been expected.

Post by Cyranix » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 11:04 PM UTC

emodendroket wrote: post #11

poulsbohemian wrote: post #8

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.

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 11:16 PM UTC

neuronexmachina wrote: post #58

acabal wrote: post #10

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…

It's basically the Tragedy of the Commons on a global scale. The atmosphere is a huge public good, and climate change is a huge negative externality. It's relatively beneficial to the individual person, and even the individual country, to ignore the problem, even if it ultimately harms the population as a whole in the long run. That's why so many people prefer to ignore the problem or pretend it doesn't exist, rather…

Post by agumonkey » Mon, Oct 09, 2017, 11:21 PM UTC

acabal wrote: post #10

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…