SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
With rising sea levels, Bangkok struggles to stay afloat.
As Bangkok prepares to host climate-change talks, the sprawling city of more than 10 million is itself under siege from the environment, with dire forecasts warning it could be partially submerged in just over a decade.
[...] As temperatures rise, abnormal weather patterns—like more powerful cyclones, erratic rainfall, and intense droughts and floods—are predicted to worsen over time, adding pressure on governments tasked with bringing the 2015 Paris climate treaty to life.
Bangkok, built on once-marshy land about 1.5 metres (five feet) above sea level, is projected to be one of the world's hardest hit urban areas, alongside fellow Southeast Asian behemoths Jakarta and Manila.
"Nearly 40 percent" of Bangkok will be inundated by as early as 2030 due to extreme rainfall and changes in weather patterns, according to a World Bank report.
Currently, the capital "is sinking one to two centimetres a year and there is a risk of massive flooding in the near future," said Tara Buakamsri of Greenpeace.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 03 2018, @11:35AM (26 children)
My view on this is the same as my view on New Orleans: move or figure out a way to deal with it but I don't want to hear any bitching whichever you choose. If you insist on building somewhere when it's an absolute certainty that the planet is going to try to remove you (swamps, volcanoes, fault lines, etc...), you don't get sympathy from me.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @11:40AM
Basically; Save the ladyboys - build a dyke!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @12:07PM (10 children)
Good thing - Bangladesh will move to neighborhood near you then
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 03 2018, @01:32PM (9 children)
S'fine. We've got room. So long as they don't go crowding up my favorite fishing holes, integrate themselves into American and local cultures, and provide a taxes-paid/tax-benefits-received ratio greater than 1 as a group, I don't mind.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday September 03 2018, @02:40PM (1 child)
Apparantly you don't know very many Bengalis. I hate to say it, no I actually don't, but if you want productive immigrants then what should be imported are Whites and some kinds of Asians.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @03:46PM
That's not trolling. That's called "an opinion that differs from yours".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @04:52PM (6 children)
Taxes are theft asshole, why you trying to steal from people in trouble?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @11:04PM (4 children)
This meme needs to die. Like in a fire. Look, little twink, you live in civilization. That means you--yes, YOU--will have to pay for it, just like everybody else. That doesn't mean you have to like paying your taxes. (I certainly don't.) But stop with the whining already about people "stealing" from you just because they insist you pay your taxes like everyone else. If you don't like your tax bill you can petition your elected representatives for redress just like anyone else. So, shut up and pay your taxes. Or, petition your government to have them lowered. Or you can find a deserted island to hide away from all the rest of humanity. I'm afraid those are your only options.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Monday September 03 2018, @11:16PM (2 children)
And what happens to the rest of the taxes? It pays for waste, fraud, corruption, war, etc. I would take the "taxes buy you civilization" people more seriously if they really cared about what the taxes were being used for rather than mouth off platitudes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @04:26PM (1 child)
Reading comprehension fail. So, exactly which part of you can petition your government for redress did you not understand?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 05 2018, @07:29AM
The part where it was remotely relevant. You're not even thinking where the money goes, much less have a target for your petitioning for redress.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:41AM
It doesn't have to be paid for with taxes. For the first century and change, we mostly made do with tariffs. Funny thing, we had less government, but no less civilization.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:21PM
You need to learn to recognize the difference between belief in a system and pragmatism. Involuntary taxation may be vile but I don't expect it's going away any time soon.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Touché) by c0lo on Monday September 03 2018, @12:38PM (4 children)
Rrrright. Because is self-evident TMB's sympathy is utterly critical for the life-as-we-know-it.
And yes, what TMB doesn't want to hear must be expressed in whispers ... of course he'll allow you to say it, because "free speech" and all that, but never-ever say it so that he'll hear it. Or else... (shudders)... he might go fishing.
(this is another installment from the "TMB opens his mouth and the authoritarian streak is showing again" saga)
(grin)
You see, in the 15 century when Bangkok was established, they gotta have known 5 centuries down the road the idiots are going to melt the glaciers and sunk the city.
Did it ever crossed your mind that low places at the end of a river make good ports? Like: Venice, Amsterdam, Bangkok, New Orleans.
Or that the soil near volcanoes is more fertile than almost any other soil type?
Or that the vicinity to active faults means gold deposits closer to the surface [huffingtonpost.com]?
Assuming that they knew about those risks in the first place, I reckon many of them would take the "high risk, high reward" deal. Even if long term the expenses would be significant (see Amsterdam), the long term profit would be greater.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday September 03 2018, @01:27PM (3 children)
Which is perfectly valid but it means they don't get to be justified in their bitching.
When you build on a swamp and don't sink piers clear down to bedrock, your shit is going to sink pretty much no matter what happens. Ask Chicago.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @02:14PM (2 children)
We know that now, but they didn't 500 years ago. And they didn't have the means to do it well at that time either.
You can hate on anyone affected by the rising seas all you want. That doesn't mean the seas aren't rising.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Monday September 03 2018, @06:44PM
They're far more affected by building in a bad location. Bangkok sinks at 10 to 20 mm per year and sea level rises at 3 mm a year. They would be having trouble in the same time frame even if there wasn't sea level rise at all. Sure, 15-30% more badness doesn't help, but this is a problem that would exist anyway.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:24PM
The hell they didn't but that's beside the point. The ones who continue to live there now are just as guilty of living in a place they know is going to sink as the folks who built on a swamp in the first place.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday September 03 2018, @03:35PM (3 children)
Yup! When we moved to where we are, i knew the chance of (seriously damaging ) earthquake was almost nil (why live in California when you KNOW a big one is coming and you could lose EVERYTHING?):
the one thing i DID look for was a house at the top of a hill, not the bottom.
Rain run-off can be a bitch and i listen to the neighbours at the bottom of the hill/road moaning about water damage and have to kind of pat myself on the back.
Also, if living at the run-off point, don't settle with just one pump to drain your basement: get at least two. One will CERTAINLY fail just when you need it. Another lesson learned from the moaning.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:48AM (2 children)
Unless you live at the top of a hill that suffers from soggy landslip syndrome; then you're first into the ditch. On the plus side, you'll land atop your soggier downhill neighbors.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday September 04 2018, @12:26PM (1 child)
Makes me wonder... If you live at the top of the hill and your shit slides a quarter mile down and parks itself on someone else's house, who owns the land where your house sits now? I mean you did kind of bring your land with you but theirs is also under there.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:10PM
Far as I know, land ownership works on the principle of vertical boundaries. So when your house squats atop someone else's house, that's either trespassing or a home invasion. Oh, and you'll need a winch. ;)
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @04:16PM (4 children)
Your view on this is dumb. Cities don't spring into existence. They either grow organically over time or they are planned for a specific location. In any case, climate change was not a consideration in placement of cities except in the broadest sense (don't build there, the cliff might collapse or the plain might flood).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by number11 on Monday September 03 2018, @04:41PM (2 children)
Of course, in the US that doesn't stop them from building on the flood plain. Developers see all that lovely land, and want to build houses, so they pester or bribe politicians to make it ok. Everybody wants growth, jobs, housing, right? Private companies won't insure the houses, but the federal government will. Sure, there was a 100-year flood a few years ago, but that means you've got almost a century until another, right?
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday September 03 2018, @10:46PM (1 child)
Flood plains are nutrient rich and great for farming, precisely because they flood regularly. They also tend to be flat, which is convenient for construction, and verdant, which is a nice bonus for living. I'm sure some proportion of building on flood plains happened before people were aware of flood plains or the implications thereof and thus can be excused. Humans are also evolutionarily short-sighted; you can't blame an entire population for not having evolved a completely new brain within a few dozen generations.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:55AM
I used to live at the peak of a ridge in the middle of the desert. FEMA decreed my property a medium-risk flood zone. Meanwhile a ways downhill, FEMA delisted a dry riverbed, and it subsequently filled up with condos... along a stretch I've personally seen under 30 feet of water.
Apparently the human brain can devolve in less than one generation.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday September 03 2018, @06:52PM