221–230 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but they won't Then they will look for someone to blame. The usual scape goats are the government and society.
You talk about "blame". Were they the ones that made the decisions causing the current ecological disaster? Society fucked up, and that fuck up is gonna affect a lot of people who are not able to move out. Some sort of bailout will be needed.
Like clockwork ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> de facto banned seems a little strong, but I understand why they say this > climate change is real, it has deleterious effects on our world, and we should take collective action to mitigate or even reverse it. plenty of comments on HN to this day will disagree, saying climate change is some anti-progress conspiracy or hasn't been studied enough or won't be that bad, etc etc.
It’s ok to disagree. Disagreement isn’t verboten here. In fact, I’ve been reading the book Unsettled by Stephen E. Koonin which calls into question the consensus on climate change and the author makes some great points.
Also, due to the risks associated with climate change, doing something now as a societal insurance policy is prudent. Not to mention that polluters are necessarily infringing on the property and human rights of everyone else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it unethical to lie in order to sell something? what exactly is a lie in this context specifically I wonder?
> “up and coming area” which never upped and never came Is this so difficult that you can't even detect your own lie specifically constructed as an example of it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is it unethical to lie in order to sell something? what exactly is a lie in this context specifically I wonder?
In your scenario, "up and coming" is specifically a lie.
I'm not sure on the math on this one. Google says: >Global sea levels are currently rising at an accelerating rate, measuring roughly 3.6–4.6 mm per year so in say 30 years time at the higher figure you have 30*4.6mm = 13.8 cm The sea is broadly at sea level so it's going to be a job to get the "3-7 metres of sea-level rise"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't need them to "leave now." We don't need them to move to California. We need them to move to Baton Rogue over a period of decades . Under a high emissions scenario, sea level is projected to rise 6 feet by 2100. New Orleans is on average 1-2 feet below sea level (up to 10 feet). Baton Rouge is 60 feet above sea level. The average elevation of the state is 100 feet. In any given year, 15% of the population mov…
Baton Rouge is partially on a bluff. But didn't you see the 7m map? The coastline will be lapping at St. George, southern EBR Parish along Burbank Road and the south part of LSU campus at that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> “up and coming area” which never upped and never came Is this so difficult that you can't even detect your own lie specifically constructed as an example of it?
I would not put this on my listing, what are you smoking mate?! (I own a condo in brightwood park in northwest dc, been sketchy since 2008 when I bought it, you need an address? lol)
> Is it unethical for me to sell my Condo which is in “up and coming area” which never upped and never came and has a very high crime rate (with/without disclaimer)?
That would be lying in order to sell something, and thus unethical.
You then expressed confusion over what exactly would be a lie here, despite you very clearly stating what the lie is in the above quote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I assure you, the proportion of New Orleans residents who would be able to leave now without financial hardship are not the majority. Even for reasonably-stable middle-class people, moving—especially out of a place like NOLA—is going to cause financial hardship.
This is true. It is also true that waiting until things bottom out will make things even worse. It will be more expensive and options will be more limited. There will need to be a federal bailout to relocate everyone who needs help. The government should also probably announce a policy that there will be no future disaster relief that involves rebuilding, only relocating. New Orleans will be the first, but not the la…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the solution to further mortgage working and contributing citizens' futures via our exploding national debt, just to throw more cash at them? California spends $40K+ a year, per homeless person, but saw the homeless population grow and the problem get worse. For welfare, consider that a single parent with two school-age children who earns $11,000 annually from part-time work ends up qualifying for $64,128 in cash,…
For $14B+ we could have solved poverty and homelessness for all of New Orleans. Where did the money go? Not to the poor, obviously. The system is broken by design.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put dikes around it, make channels to collect the seepage, pump water out of channels over the dikes into the sea. Problem solved in the same way the Netherlands has been solving this problem for many centuries. The pumps can run on solar power with some diesel backups for when the sun doesn't co-operate. As long as the system is kept in good shape and the channels are kept open Miami can lie several meters under sea…
I imagine this type of system is not designed for large, sudden and prolonged inundation of water, something New Orleans faces from seasonal hurricanes and their storm surges. Or maybe it is and it’s just a question of magnitude?