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: 4, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Sunday November 27 2016, @09:18PM
Generally speaking, every modern government bad at proactive policy. Especially proactive policy with a significant price tag. Even more especially proactive policy with a significant price tag that specifically benefits portions of the population who are only apt to be harmed due to their own choices.
In Pennsylvania there are towns with longstanding underground coal fires where random parts of the ground collapse into giant sinkholes. We don't let people build there and then bail them out with taxpayer money; we condemn the regions and don't allow anyone to live there (and if they choose to violate this, no emergency services). Similarly, it's not the public's responsibility to literally bail out people who are (also literally) about to be underwater.
Significant global warming and sea level rise is highly, highly probable; this has been known for decades by now. There are always people who would prefer to ignore the preponderance of evidence and/or speculate on long odds. Anyone living in these areas should be counted among them. Simple fact of the matter is that it isn't the public's place to backstop expensive bad bets, which is what these properties are. Put differently, these people are going in to casinos and making huge bets - when they win, they keep the winnings; when they lose, the charge it to the taxpayers. Good deal, huh? (As an aside, this is also exactly what the big banks did in 2008, got away with it, and are still getting away with it).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 27 2016, @11:14PM
The Dutch seem to be dealing with the sea proactively and successfully, not to mention other things.