Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday October 13 2017, @10:00AM   Printer-friendly
from the agile-development dept.

As U.S. cities begin to plan to adapt to impacts from climate change, local decision makers face difficult choices about how to even get started.

A new study led by a University of Kansas urban planning researcher sheds light on tradeoffs between taking a narrow approach focused on connections between climate change adaptation and reducing risks from hazards like Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, and taking a broader approach connecting adaptation to a wide array of city functions.

"Climate change impacts will be pervasive - forcing changes to transportation, housing, emergency management and countless other parts of our daily lives—and cities will need holistic strategies," said Ward Lyles, assistant professor of urban planning in the KU School of Public Affairs & Administration. "Our research identifies a paradox, however. Cities that begin with a narrower focus as part of planning for natural hazards appear to lay a stronger foundation for a more comprehensive approach down the line. Meanwhile, cities that start by tackling the comprehensive range of climate-related impacts initially may lack the focus needed to robustly address climate change impacts, like flooding and severe storms."

Fat chance. Waterworld is happening, baby.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday October 13 2017, @11:40AM (4 children)

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Friday October 13 2017, @11:40AM (#581697) Journal

    Yup. Same argument can be made (in vain) against people who take the biblical flood too literally.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @02:19PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @02:19PM (#581757)

    Given that the flood has multiple sources, and given that in the bible the age in years of men before and after the flood is different (and has very tenuous theological meaning so is likely not symbolic) which points to a different rotation rate of the planet itself or to something equally radical, I would not pull the popular RationalAmerican(tm) stunt and assume it was something of smaller scale.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 13 2017, @03:37PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 13 2017, @03:37PM (#581810) Journal

      which points to a different rotation rate of the planet itself or to something equally radical

      Like a translation error. The given ages were probably the same before and after, it was just in different units of time (say lunar months versus years). The rationalization that God for some bizarre reason shortened the lifespan of humans was probably a rhetorical fig leaf over this error.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 13 2017, @05:44PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday October 13 2017, @05:44PM (#581894)
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @07:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 13 2017, @07:17PM (#581954)

    Back in the 1960s, before he became krytonite, Bill Cosby had the best take on this. [google.com]
    "I keep telling the rabbits, 'Only two, only two'."

    -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]