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, 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.