71–80 of 213 posts
Why is the government buying these people out? The homeowners weren't forced to purchase these properties, so it's not the government's responsibility to remediate the situation.
If the government failed to hold corporations that emitted greenhouse gasses accountable for their externalities then I'd say that it becomes the government's responsibility.
SLR (sea level rise) is a problem, but this article promotes a kind of alarmist version of SLR, in my admittedly inexpert opinion. SLR has been going on for 20,000 years, and it may be accelerating in the last few decades due to global warming; however, if your property is threatened by a 3mm SLR per year you probably didn’t make a wise purchase in the first place. 2+mm SLR per year has been going on for at least 150…
The paper you cite is dated 2013 and says SLR has been 3mm/year since the 1990s. It mentions the possibilities of more dramatic rises by 2100 but doesn't go into much detail. If we're talking about a meter of SLR in the next 80 years, thats 12.5mm/year.
Here's the latest from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration[1]. It is a graph that shows with 95% confidence there has been a 2.42mm/year SLR for Key West from 1913 to 2018, the most recent information on their site for sea level trends.
When I look at the graph, it looks quite linear over that time period, that spans from before significant anthropomorphic CO2 to the current period of hockey-stick temperatures. I don't see the evidence for expecting 12.5mm/yr, but I'm not a climate scientist.
I'm ready to call BS on the Bloomberg article, but I'm open to hearing more information on this.
[1] https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station....
Why is the government buying these people out? The homeowners weren't forced to purchase these properties, so it's not the government's responsibility to remediate the situation.
Rich people own beach property. This is a government for the rich.
Why is the government buying these people out? The homeowners weren't forced to purchase these properties, so it's not the government's responsibility to remediate the situation.
If the government is making it policy not to be able to live on land you purchased, then it should compensate you.
(The exception being if everyone who bought property had always known there was an e.g. 80% chance of the government taking it without payment and thus bought their property at e.g. 20% of what would otherwise be the market value... but that doesn't seem to be the case.)
Why is the government buying these people out? The homeowners weren't forced to purchase these properties, so it's not the government's responsibility to remediate the situation.
Because the government is interested in minimizing future economic losses from repeated flooding. It's not charity, it's rational planning.
I'm in NJ. A few years back we had hurricane / super-storm Sandy. Not only did the GOP gov at the time ( Chris Christie) find the money to rebuild. The state actually ran adverts with the tag line "Stronger than the storm." It made no sense to me.
The people living at the shore (as we call it in NJ) aren't in denial. They don't even see it.
A little late if hurricanes are your benchmark for climate change. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane What's sad is that most reporters know that climate change is measured in decade long trends. Small yearly increases in sea level, gradual increases in global temps and slow changes in atmospheric composition. But that doesn't get clicks. Associating climate change with outlying catastrophic eve…
I am completely fine with it. We need to convince low information voters that climate change is a serious issue, and the opposition likes to point at snow storms and bring snowballs to congress as proof that climate change is a hoax.
“It’s snowing - climate change is a hoax”
“It’s 100F, - climate change proof”
A counter-argument to climate alarmist statistics, shows use of selective presentation of statistics to portray specific conclusion on climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8455KEDitpU
Billions of birds dead, insect apocalypse, amphibian populations decimated, etc... But yeah people are just being alarmist, it's the end of the world and I feel fine.
> "By the end of the century, 13 million Americans will need to move just because of rising sea levels, at a cost of $1 million each" 13M feels low. Given the "of $1M each" then perhaps they means households. At an average of 4 heads per, 52M individuals feels closer. That said, what goes into a $1M move? Does beachfront property average out that high? Finally, is that $1M in current dollars, or adjusted for inflatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Billions of birds dead, insect apocalypse, amphibian populations decimated, etc... But yeah people are just being alarmist, it's the end of the world and I feel fine.
The thing is just that people continually present opinions that require numbers in proper context to validate, but seemingly reject the concept that numbers in context are socially appropriate, at all.