131–140 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they can exist forth on the metaverse.
That is a very grim assessment. But yeah they might become the worlds first virtualized state for stateless people.
Do I really have to be the one pointing out this is a well executed PR event? Tuvalu won't be submerged for centuries even in the worst case scenarios. They will have incrementally increasing problems from it decade by decade. But that press release will not go anywhere.
I’m sure they were completely shocked by their carefully staged and promoted photo op.
The image of the government official standing in the water "on what used to be dry land" is quite dramatic.[1] Unfortunately that land is not underwater due to climate change-driven sea level rise, but due to soil erosion. They do mention this fact, however the focus of the article inexplicably remains on rising sea levels. A factchecker might call that "missing context" (or worse). [1] https://www.reuters.com/resize…
> Unfortunately that land is not underwater due to climate change-driven sea level rise, but due to soil erosion. They do mention this fact, however the focus of the article inexplicably remains on rising sea levels.
> A factchecker might call that "missing context" (or worse).
Summarizing is a thing journalists do to make things more accessible to lay readers, but that didn't work in your case, so I'll expand with common resources and research from ten seconds worth of googling.
"As global sea level rises, the action of waves at higher elevations increases the likelihood for extensive coastal erosion. " (https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/coastal-flood-risk/coasta...)
"Sea level rise shown to drive coastal erosion" (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/00EO...)
Please don't assume malice.
The image of the government official standing in the water "on what used to be dry land" is quite dramatic.[1] Unfortunately that land is not underwater due to climate change-driven sea level rise, but due to soil erosion. They do mention this fact, however the focus of the article inexplicably remains on rising sea levels. A factchecker might call that "missing context" (or worse). [1] https://www.reuters.com/resize…
Tuvalu is just 26 sq km. How many bulk carriers filled with dirt you need to raise that by a few meters?
That's 2.6 * 10^8 cubic meters of compacted dirt and rock needed to raise the island by 10m-- which is more than 1500 kg/cubic meter (1.5 tonnes/cubic meter). The largest bulk carriers manage about 400,000 DWT. So, about 1000 trips of the largest around... ignoring the logistical and ecological challenges of procuring that much material and using it to raise the island in a durable way.
I hope the math for how much it costs isn’t so low as to be sad to fix this problem in the wrong way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is most certainly not true of every state; if no one recognizes your claims, but you can still feed your citizens and defend your borders, you are "a state".
Okay, then you definitely couldn’t include anything more than the 5 nuclear-weapon states.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These nations will need to make arrangements to migrate to welcoming host nations, that will allow for local governance similar to how tribal lands work in the US. Wealth could be preserved by seeking restitution from nations according to lifetime emissions (which has led to sea level rise), and creating a trust to manage and distribute the returns from those funds invested to citizens where ever they are. Once subme…
call me cynical, but would any country be willing to give up its land like that? Tribal lands only exist to give back a small fraction of stolen lands back. Would any country give land to another country just for goodwill?
So have we moved from "climate change isn't real" to "it's real but we aren't gonna do anything"? Nobody making long term plans is questioning the science of it, they're just trying to figure out how to be the last ones to starve.
Yes, but it's rude to talk about it. Like not mentioning politics at Thanksgiving dinner so we can pretend we all agree...
So have we moved from "climate change isn't real" to "it's real but we aren't gonna do anything"? Nobody making long term plans is questioning the science of it, they're just trying to figure out how to be the last ones to starve.
If we were really going to prevent catastrophic climate change the realistic time to act would have be probably 50-70 years ago. I've become fairly patient with climate deniers over the years since it is both a difficult to imagine idea and contains serious amounts of existential dread, making it very hard to reason about. Because of the latter I don't know anyone, climate scientists and myself included, that aren't…
We will probably geoengineer local solutions so that the human race is not in any real danger of extinction but it won't be the nice high-flyin good times we have now.