SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the a-rising-tide-lifts-all-boats-but-not-so-good-for-property dept.
Michael Mishak writes that there are few places in the nation more vulnerable to rising sea levels than low-lying South Florida, a tourist and retirement mecca built on drained swampland. Yet as other coastal states and the Obama administration take aggressive measures to battle the effects of global warming, Florida's top Republican politicians are challenging the science and balking at government fixes. In Miami Beach the concern is palpable. On a recent afternoon, local businessman Scott McKenzie pulled out his iPad and flipped through photos from a 2009 storm. In one, two women kayak through knee-high water in the center of town. "This is not a future problem. It's a current problem," says Leonard Berry, a contributing author of the National Climate Assessment, which found that sea levels have risen about 8 inches in the past century. By one regional assessment, the waters off South Florida could rise another 2 feet by 2060, a scenario that would overwhelm the region's aging drainage system and taint its sources of drinking water. "It's getting to the point where some properties being bought today will probably not be able to be sold at the end of a 30-year mortgage," says Harold Wanless. "You would think responsible leaders and responsible governments would take that as a wake-up call."
Gov. Rick Scott, who is running for re-election, has worked with the Republican-controlled Legislature to dismantle Florida's fledgling climate change initiatives that were put into place by his predecessor and current opponent, Democrat Charlie Crist. "I'm not a scientist," says Scott when asked about anthropogenic global warming during a stop in Miami. Meanwhile, Miami Beach is bracing for another season of punishing tides. "We're suffering while everyone is arguing man-made or natural," says Christine Florez, president of the West Avenue Corridor Neighborhood Association. "We should be working together to find solutions so people don't feel like they've been left on a log drifting out to sea."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Monday June 09 2014, @03:26PM
The right-wing crowd usually sees this issue from the wrong side. It's not the environment which is at stake, here. The Earth is billions of years old and will still be here for at least one billion more. It's BILLIONS OF PEOPLE living in the coastal areas that are being severely hit by the ocean rise. Mother Nature didn't give a fuck about the extinction of the trilobites, why would it give a fuck about us?
So, let's forget the environment for a while. What do you want to do with BILLIONS OF PEOPLE who will likely lose their homes in the near future if we keep sitting on our asses arguing about bullshit?
Saying "fuck the environment" usually gives you a lot of right-wing votes. Saying "fuck the people" is a lot different, unless you're talking about the Bangladeshian people, who the right-wingers don't give a fuck about. In this particular case, the Florida voters may notice that the "people" in "fuck the people" are themselves.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @04:04PM
Nah. The people rich enough to vote right wing will be fine, as they can get up to move and keep voting in their tax breaks.
Everyone else voting right wing are pretty comfortable voting against their self interests, so they'll continue to blame the flooding on god, gays, or the democrats - even as they're standing in three feet of water.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Monday June 09 2014, @07:37PM
That three feet of water is punishment for voting in democrats who accept gays. Pray, repent, and vote republican if you wish to be saved.
Sorry, childhood mental conditioning just happened to kick in.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday June 09 2014, @07:47PM
So how many centuries is the "near future"? The obvious solution is to just let these people move uphill as time goes on. It's not that much drama. I'm sure even the tougher cases like India and Bangladesh can work something out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09 2014, @09:01PM
And are you going to volunteer to help people move their houses "uphill" for free? If not, tell me where all that money is going to come from? Since moving an entire house, if its even possible, is likely to be so expensive it'd probably be cheaper to tear it down and build a new one.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday June 11 2014, @12:51AM
It would be trivial since the house is eventually going to be destroyed anyway either due to old age or accident. Then they just build uphill rather than on the current low value (due to flooding) site.