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: 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.