SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to this article, Vancouver, Canada officials have put out a report that lays out options for dealing with sea level rise. Three generic strategies evaluated are: Adapt, Protect, or Retreat, the last of which means that for some parts of the city, people might just need to "get out of the way". In that case, the city would buy up homes and remove infrastructure over a period of several decades. It's not an easy thing to ask for people to leave their homes decades before an area is flooded.
By the year 2100, 13 square kilometers of Vancouver (containing around 4,000 households worth $7 billion) will be on floodplains so action needs to be taken soon to protect them. Areas like Jericho Beach and the Fraser River are already experiencing more frequent flooding.
First, Vancouver will publicize its plans then gauge public reaction. The world will be watching.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 27 2016, @09:13PM
San Francisco needs to topple into the sea and take all of its sodomites with it. It would be a sad loss of historical architecture but losing the people (especially Dianne "Fifth-Columnist" Feinstein) would be well worth it. California, a state with many diverse political beliefs, gets a bad rap because the rest of the world's exposure to Californians is exposure to the San Francisco ideology, which is far-removed from reality.
But regarding the article:
The first question which could be asked is, is this a shady Eminent domain-type seizure where the government buys beachfront property at cost, waits until the "all clear," then allows condo development on it? The second question is, what are the cost terms of the buyout? Market value? Using governmental power to force them into a buyout below market value? Using the threat of danger to drive down market value to buy at a discount? Or does this mean nothing at all, because the plans are only feelgood bullshit for climate alarmists and not likely to be implemented?
There is a word for this, first described in Naomi Klein's book, The Shock Doctrine -- Disaster Capitalism. Destroying foreign lands like Iraq were quite profitable for some, and it is only a matter of time until the principle reaches our own soil.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 27 2016, @09:43PM
Hmm, modded troll. Okay, back to the drawing board -- there's been a lot of talk about Californian secessionism lately, but to just do it even if allowed is a puerile oversimplified assessment of the situation.
As I said before, There exists a wide diversity of political belief within California. So, it secedes from the union, and now it's back to square one because it is now only a microcosm of the same situation it experienced while in the Union -- a divided population.
But there is a magical solution that will work. Some have discussed dividing California into six states. But that is not necessary, dividing California into two will be good enough. How do we draw those borders? Easy. Start with the Northern horizontal border of Orange County. Then, from there, go 50 miles inland. Then, draw upward, mirroring the coast, until you reach the Oregon border. Not hard to do with existing mapping technology. You will be left with something long, coastal, and skinny; like Chile.
Let that long skinny coastal strip harbor all the illegal immigrants, degenerate sodomites, beach bums, and anybody else who wants to take advantage of the goodwill of virtue-signallers with big property values living in tourist-traps. Let it be rich, and let its naive altruism cause it to collapse in on itself and eschew the very values on which it was founded. Then, when they come crawling back, we can label them "racists."
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @10:17PM
While I am sympathetic to the idea of divided political states if for no other reason than unmitigated gall and idiocy that seems to permeate the left anymore (it's like pure concentrated evil in ego form), this ultimately improves nothing, and just kicks the can further down the road until someone can leverage an advantage into lording over the great unwashed masses. Nearly every political persuasion gets too full of itself and decides to crash their ideology headlong into reality with catastrophic consequence. We don't live long enough to internalize the lessons of history.
Nope, what really needs to be impressed upon is rule and be ruled, which is the real lesson of democracy, of maintaining a tenable peace even with those at the fringes for one day they too will rise to power.
While having a singalong of Kumbaya isn't in the cards at the moment, being at least cordial to the overtures some on the left have made is good public policy and working towards whatever compromises can be made.
That can start with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @10:29PM
OC is becoming Dem-converged. 51.4% voted Clitton. Screw them.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:00PM
It kicks the can further down the road for leftist idiots, who will ultimately turn inward and eat each other.
The libertarian self-sufficient have already demonstrated they can live on their own, even if they have to fish from streams to eat.
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:01PM
You don't know much about California, do you? There are lots of Hispanics in the central valley (farming country). I don't think that it is a stretch to think that many of them are undocumented.
Also, the suggestion of breaking CA into 5 states, that would leave the central valley as the poorest state in the nation. I can't image there is much enthusiasm in that part of CA to break into a separate state.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:03PM
You are just jealous of the wealth in CA, aren't you?
You can't stand it that people who live in a liberal state make more money than you and don't have to live in a place with a terrible climate (as well as many other terrible things in your state).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:23PM
You fucking moron, I've lived here just about my entire life. I was born into a poor agricultural community,
But Californians are retards, like you, who will attack themselves on the basis of petty issues.
I don't care about wealth, just expatriation of dumb-shits...like you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Whoever on Monday November 28 2016, @01:08AM
I don't believe you.
You come here to spout your offensive vitriol. I don't know if it is genuine, or just an offensive troll.
What I do know is that there is absolutely no reason to believe anything that you post. Nothing.
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Monday November 28 2016, @04:36PM
The self portrait of Ethanol-fueled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:45AM
Bullshit. Complete Bullshit. You don't live in California.
A quick look at your posting history shows that you post at times that simply are not credible for a California resident.
You don't live in California. You live in flyover country. You are jealous of Californians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @02:08PM
You can't stand it that people who live in a liberal state make more money than you and don't have to live in a place with a terrible climate
While paying a far greater cost of living. Last time I ran the numbers it was clear that big California salary would be needed just to keep the standard of living that I already have while making considerably less.
Also as far as weather goes at least I'm not alternating between landslides and massive wildfires on a regular basis while being 5 years into a megadrought.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 28 2016, @02:37AM
Ethanol-fueled wrote:
Latent homosexual spotted!
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 28 2016, @07:55AM
To be fair, I'm pretty sure he's never had sex and never will (no, Eth, your hand doesn't count and neither does sitting on an empty beer bottle, speaking of "degenerate...").
It's hard to tell what he believes, what's pure trollery, and what's some combination of both, and in what proportion. He's certainly got a way with words though.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @09:44PM
San Francisco needs to topple into the sea and take all of its sodomites with it.
But, my dear fellow, who else will be willing to suck your dirty cock?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Sunday November 27 2016, @10:55PM
The first question which could be asked is, is this a shady Eminent domain-type seizure where the government buys beachfront property at cost, waits until the "all clear," then allows condo development on it? The second question is, what are the cost terms of the buyout? Market value? Using governmental power to force them into a buyout below market value? Using the threat of danger to drive down market value to buy at a discount? Or does this mean nothing at all, because the plans are only feelgood bullshit for climate alarmists and not likely to be implemented?
What is the cost of a levee etc to 'protect' the land. Who will pay to build and maintain that? The people protected by the levee? Or the whole city? Province? If we assume the 'city' or 'province' is going to bear the cost of 'protecting' the area, then there is definitely a point at which relocating people makes more sense than protecting them.
The cost model is of course extremely complex, because you are right, areas targeted for relocation will decline in value. But how can that not happen... ? People who refuse to move will eventually find themselves underwater... literally. And the properties will be worthless. And its always been the case that an engineering report can ruin a property value. This is just on a larger scale.
Your cynical assessment of it all being a scam to transfer property to developers after the 'scare' clears people out is... an interesting take on it. But even if you think AGW is bunk, and its all natural cycles or something (despite the evidence)... Even "natural cycles" can change the coastline too. Right now the sea levels are rising. Does it really matter whether the sea rising is the result of human activity or otherwise once your house is underwater?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday November 28 2016, @02:55AM
The sea levels are rising a few centimeters per century, which is hardly an emergency. And the coastline may rise (or fall) as the land itself shifts.
I think EtOH is dead on here.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Funny) by vux984 on Monday November 28 2016, @05:12AM
At risk of bringing some facts to the debate:
http://vancouver.ca/green-vancouver/sea-level-rise.aspx [vancouver.ca]
There is a chart showing sea level from 1950 to projected 2100.
Now you can dispute the predictions if you like, but there was a 20 cm rise from 1950 to 2000. That makes a 40 cm rise from 1950 to 2050 a petty conservative estimate.
"The sea levels are rising a few centimeters per century"
Sure, if by a "few" you mean 40+
I'm sorry that's a lot more than a 'few' in my book. Further, if you are willing to even consider that the earth is on warming trend right now (nevermind the 'why') then doing your disaster planning based on a 1m sea level rise is pretty justifiable.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Reziac on Monday November 28 2016, @02:07PM
At the risk of bringing different facts to the debate...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0 [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrWznOFq38s [youtube.com]
Lots and lots of facts and figures, with the advantage of having not been massaged to fit the narrative.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Informative) by vux984 on Monday November 28 2016, @05:00PM
youtube? give me a break. im not watching a video. I'm not watching any of that...and the final one features arguments by "Lord Christopher Monckton" seriously... this guy:
In July 2011 the House of Lords took the "unprecedented step" of publishing online a cease and desist letter to Monckton from the Clerk of the Parliaments, which concluded, "I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."
That guy? So much for the "Lord".
Monckton advocates for climate change denial He says a greenhouse effect exists, and that carbon dioxide contributes to it, but claims there is no "causative link" from CO2-concentration to global average temperature...
He doesn't even really support your argument; because even he agrees the temperature is rising, he just doesn't think its anthrogenic. And for the purposes of planning for sealevel rise -- it doesn't MATTER if its anthropogenic or not, all that matters is that the sea level is rising.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm [skepticalscience.com]
First chart. That's not a climate change prediction. That's not up for debate. That's the sea level over the past 140 years. Better than 1.5m. In the last 20-30 years it's moving 10cm per decade. It doesn't matter whether you believe in global warming or not. Only a complete fool wouldn't do their 10-, 20- and 100- year plans for the future based on seeing that trend continue.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday November 28 2016, @12:25PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday November 28 2016, @02:10PM
Of course they vary. And the global tidal bulge can cause variations of several feet. But this is nothing new or extreme, and has damn little to do with global warming (which in any event, is ... well, read Dr.Roy Spencer's book.)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.