Tuvalu is just 26 sq km. How many bulk carriers filled with dirt you need to raise that by a few meters?
Probably easier to just move all the people somewhere else
Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
141–150 of 211 posts
Re: Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
#142So 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.
What's the alternative?
I mostly agree but... I don't think anyone has taken geoengineering seriously yet so maybe some of that?
Re: Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
#143Earlier 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.
Not strictly true; states that have nuclear weapons are capable of destroying other states, but not necessarily invading, repurposing, and ruling them to the point that their own legal and governmental system is subsumed by the other.
Re: Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
#144They should look at the metaverse. I am told that is the future.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments, please don't take HN on generic tangents, and especially not generic flamewar tangents.
All that leads to predictable and lower-quality discussion. We'd like the vector to point the opposite way here.
Re: Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
#145If the worst case scenario happens and Tuvalu is submerged, how will the state manage to survive even without territory? Is that in the best interest of its citizens? Can any of the nation's collective wealth be preserved, either in the form of an enduring landless state as proposed, or by in some way transferring that wealth as the citizens emigrate somewhere else? Or is this proposal the futile death throes of a st…
The Sovereign Military Order of Malta has had observer status at the UN since the early 1990s despite having no territory.[0] They issue their own passports and enters intro treaties like a regular state. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Ma...
So does the Red Cross and the International Olympic Committee [1]. And if you scroll up you see so do many "banks".
UN Observer status is most often used to discuss the status of states like Palestines but it has less of an implication of being a sovereign "state" than people think.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
Re: Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tuvalu’s total land mass is ~10 square miles, which doesn’t seem onerous to provide. That’s about 22% the size of San Francisco (~46 sq miles).
Their problem is not where people will sit (likely NZ will oblige) but that they want to retain control over other territorial claims/benefits such as fishing zone, domain, orbital rights et al.
The fact that they want that does not mean that they will receive that; they may well turn out to be one of the many nations in history who lose their claims. We have an international consensus regarding basic human rights and process for refugees which means that they near certainly will get an ability to resettle somewhere, but their fishing rights may well be divided among the surviving neighbouring nations without any compensation to Tuvalu unless those neighbouring nations just choose to grant some.
By the way, what do you mean by "orbital rights"? IMHO according to the Outer Space Treaty you have only the right to the orbits you are currently actively using with your satellites and nothing more.
Re: Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dont think the UN can recognize that as a state with territory, territorial waters, EEZ etc.
Why not? many countries make their own islands, adjust their coast lands and do other sorts of geoengineering. Building tall platforms isn't that controversial either.
The UNCLOS allows them to make artificial islands in their EEZ, but to have an EEZ they must be a country first.
Re: Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tuvalu exists as a state because the international community decided to let them. They export coconuts and fishing licenses for hard currency, and there is no way they could muster the money and hardware to defend their patch of the ocean. So if the same institutions that decided to enable the foundation of the republic of Tuvalu decide to protect Tuvualuan territorial waters as a way to give the Tuvaluan diaspora so…
> there is no way they could muster the money and hardware to defend their patch of the ocean. You also cannot defend a patch of ocean without some land, at least with current technology. War ships require quite a bit of time in dry dock for fueling, refit, and rearmament. And that's before we consider the subpar fighting capability that crews without shore leave would provide. No, they'd still need to buy or borrow…
How many war ships does Tuvalu own or operate?
Re: Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
#149The 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…
> 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). Summarizing is a thing journ…
Once again some context is missing.
Of course coastal erosion is caused by wave action. However, the reason it is a problem is because of mangrove deforestation. Over half of the Pacific islands' mangroves have been rapidly destroyed by human development efforts just in the last 20 years.
Mangroves are the natural, first and best line of defense against coastal erosion. They create soil. Without either mangroves or manmade seawalls, it doesn't matter what the sea level is - the coast will erode at an unsustainable rate.
It really grinds my gears that "solving climate change" - the hardest problem to solve - is presented as a panacea for what are really more complex environmental issues which actually happen to have simpler solutions.
Re: Tuvalu looking at legal ways to be a state if it is submerged
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
The most likely resolution would be a land purchase in (for example) Fiji along with a grant of autonomous power on that land, in exchange for a fishing lease in Tuvaluan waters. Fiji gets a share of Tuvaluan fishing grounds, and the Tuvaluans get a place to live AND some protection for their territorial waters by a nation that is still landed.
Why would Fiji treat them any differently than the Indians?
Fishing rights. Cultural affinity. But yes, there is very much a risk that the Fijians will mistreat the Tuvaluans.