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: 5, Insightful) by Spamalope on Monday September 03 2018, @02:43PM (2 children)
Well, the story is 'Subsidence threatens Bangkok, city built on a swamp - here's how it's the western worlds fault'.
They need an Amsterdam solution or a move. (for a move - new building code requires x feet above sea level, requires any flood insurance to be local pool only so folks who move aren't subsidizing those who won't, urban planning for maintaining effective port facilities, flood mitigation where practical - the goal being to get the remaining useful life out of existing structures as much as practical while not sinking good money after bad)
Wait - are they executing that plan and phase one is 'try guilting western world into providing handouts'? Or is this political posturing/virtue signaling?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @06:03PM (1 child)
is everything that someone says that right leaning people don't like a virtue signal? isn't racism a virtue signal? authoratarianism? hiring undocumented workers while skirting the law because profit is more important than nationalism?
asking for money isn't a virtue. lying about the causes isn't a virtue. displaying the lack of pride or ethics aren't virtues what virtues are they signaling? it cant be that they are somehow better, and if that's what you think, thats wrong because we all know here its a lie. is false virtue signaling even something we can disparage them about if we disparage them for true virtue signaling? damned if you do...
there's nothing virtuous about marketing, advertising, and the efforts of those two to attempt guilt manipulation of people that might be persuaded to donate to help.
what virtue they are signaling because there's nothing about misleading people about the causes of their problems while asking for money that is somehow virtuous.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday September 03 2018, @11:34PM
I guess we have to look at the meaning [oxforddictionaries.com] of words, eh?
If you're making a distinction between "true" and "false" virtue signalling, then you're not getting the point of the term. Sure, it can be deceptive, delusional, or hypocritical, which I guess would be "false" virtue signalling. But even when it's true (that is, the person believes what they're saying and makes a good faith effort to be in compliance with the public presentation), it's an obnoxious "This is how good I am" message.