|
Post by haplotype on Dec 17, 2007 8:52:04 GMT -5
My point about Sri Lanka is that it has millions of people who will be displaced if the sea levels rise significantly. Where are those millions of people gonna go, but of course sweet home Alabama? What if they just move further inland? I've lived in Japan for 10 years before. Japan has plenty of non-volcanic hills and mountains. Many towns in inland Japan are perfectly habitable, but have been losing people because young people move to big cities on the coast. Inland cities throughout other industrialized countries are also suffering from declining populations, since young people tend to move to big cities on the coast, and few immigrants are interested in moving inland. If sea levels rise, it just means people and wealth will shift back to inland cities.
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Dec 17, 2007 20:39:14 GMT -5
If sea levels rise, it will probably make more economic sense to simply relocate people over the next 50 or so years.
Los Angeles went from a million people in 1920 to 10 million in 2000, and add to it the place is simply a massive suburb. With the ability to erect high density housing in short amounts of time, it won't be too hard to relocate people...as long as the will and financial capacity is there.
Ironically, China's quest for alternative energy in the Three Gorges Dam has relocated a few million. So far there have been problems, so this will be a good case study/precedent for the world to look upon, in the case that sea levels do rise and people do need to be relocated.
Though the US can easily cut their carbon emissions and become more energy independent by developing more nuclear power plants. France emits 1/3rd tonnes of CO2 per capita that the US does because they get 80% of their energy from nuclear power. They are also not in Iraq probably because of no vested raw material interests.
Its unfortunate though that this source of energy is never brought up because of its negative connotation brought by terrorist organizations such as Green Peace and Elf. In truth, Nuclear power kills even fewer people on average than hydro electric power, and is infinitely safer than coal power (which kills approximately 3000 per year in China). China plans on building 2 per year for the next 50 or so, so it won't be enough at all.
The bottom line is if the projections are true, there is essentially no way of curbing the emissions of Carbon Dioxide. Even if the US cuts it in half, China and India's growth will prevent a curb in emissions even if they never emit at the US's capacity. China is 92nd in tonnes of CO2 per capita yet already has surpassed the US in emission. Then you have India, whose population will eventually surpass China's, whom China is beginning to outsource some of their labor to. They probably rank lower than China in the category.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 18, 2007 6:33:47 GMT -5
My point about Sri Lanka is that it has millions of people who will be displaced if the sea levels rise significantly. Where are those millions of people gonna go, but of course sweet home Alabama? What if they just move further inland? I've lived in Japan for 10 years before. Japan has plenty of non-volcanic hills and mountains. Many towns in inland Japan are perfectly habitable, but have been losing people because young people move to big cities on the coast. Inland cities throughout other industrialized countries are also suffering from declining populations, since young people tend to move to big cities on the coast, and few immigrants are interested in moving inland. If sea levels rise, it just means people and wealth will shift back to inland cities. If sea levels rise, millions will die, there will be political turmoil as you will have billions of refugees seeking shelter inland in countries and regions that may not be able to accommodate them or will resist accommodating them. You have not answered my question: will you mind accepting millions of refugees settling in Alabama when this disaster happens? By the way, I do appreciate your response in that you have answered very respectfully and without resorting to sarcastic insults.
|
|
|
Post by juancarlos on Dec 18, 2007 6:35:16 GMT -5
Seejay,
You're making the assumption that the rise in sea levels will be gradual. What if it came in bursts and in sporadic timing?
JC
|
|
cm
Junior Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by cm on Dec 19, 2007 2:01:57 GMT -5
It's not going to rise overnight. The projections are that it will be significant in 50-100 years.
The storms that come with climate change may be significant.
I think India and China have a lot more to lose by not modernizing than by sea level rise.
Many point that Chinese farmland would be destroyed...but they ignore that Siberian weather conditions would change and probably give the area habitability and agricultural capabilities.
The real trouble would be in third world nations where transition would be much harder. Here the West would have to help along with China and India (who are super powers by then).
But it's not like they wouldn't have problems without global warming.
|
|