With the ridiculously overinflated value of that real estate today, best plan would be to sell that property which may end up on the bottom of the ocean or bay and buy something inland. Rest of the state be damned. And shift to a home-based practice, buy a place near public transportation or retire from the profit of the land sale so as not to deal with that traffic mess.
I’d be more worried about an earthquake on the coast (especially if they continue to pull water from the water table and potentially destabilizes the ground) than some climate change issue.
It’s an accepted marketing technique. In this case, scientists have taken a range of data and modeled a range of outcomes based on them. People, being what they are, aren’t too sensitive towards the apparently moderate (more likely) outcomes and tend to focus on the less likely or extreme outcomes. In effect, they demand it in order to get their attention.
Al Gore didn’t tell us so much that we were going to experience all the extreme outcomes, but he did tell us about a range of possibilities scientists were proposing.
Climate change will also lead to more frequent extreme weather events, including drought in CA.
But yes, if the increased suffering and death of hundreds of millions of people doesn’t concern you, then I can see why you have trouble seeing what the big deal is with global warming or why its all that bad.
@bay:
I read your original post, and it doesn’t come off as a denier. The questions you are asking are legitimate, about what the consequences are, what we can do about it and so forth. As I noted in a prior post, scientists are not sure of the scope of the changes or how fast or what the impact is (and I am not saying that the way the deniers say it, which is ‘science disagrees with each other, so warming isn’t true’ which is infantile to say the least).
There are scientists who believe global warming is man made but given the economic realities of fossil fuels, and how far climate already has been changed, there is nothing we can do to revert, rather,they argue, we should start adapting to it. If we are going to have droughts, then we need to figure out how to get drinking water to places that need it, or for agriculture, because snowpack, a common basis for water supplies, is going to be impacted. Places like Denver, that have had big problems with water, will face more challenges, and so forth. A lot of places around where I live have their power lines above ground, which if large storms are expected to be more frequent, then they better figure out how to address that. Places that have power under ground, especially near the sea,may face seawater contamination, and so forth.
The kind of basic questioning to me that I would call denier is someone throwing out objections to climate change that I have heard, that “there is no proof there is warming”, “the global temperature during the X period has not risen”, and some of the other myths and half truths that have been spread out there, many of which have been debunked if someone bothered to check. I think it is very valuable to be skeptical of wild claims of disasters, but it is also good to be skeptical of those totally denying global climate change is man made, and my view of it is if you wipe out the extreme gloom and doom crowd, and the total deniers, you still have a lot of things to think about and say “what if about”? When true deniers have to resort to the kind of frameworks they do to try and deny climate change is human based, it tells me they know the truth and are just in a rearguard action to delay the inevitable IMO
I did not ask “why is it considered undesireable to move big cities around?”
I asked why is it a humongous deal if people have to move as a result of climate change? I accept that the climate is changing, and that NYC will become inhabitable. I am a very practical person, so when I look at that scenario, I think, yes it will be sad if an iconic American city is gone in 100 years, but people will settle elsewhere and life will go on.
My kid may graduate from college and say, I’m not going to start my software company in NYC, because it is a risky location. I’m going to start it in Wyoming, or another safer location, and raise my kids there. And so on for the kids in the next generation. And they will take all the NYC jobs with them. My great grandchildren won’t miss NYC because they will never have known it, but they will have built their own great cities.
Yes, the NYC property owners will lose value in their properties (mostly paper gain). But they are one-percenters and no one cares about them anyway.
So, that’s it then? The last word? People are mild sociopaths?
I’ve long suspected that the great majority of people are too self-interested to do much more than go beyond professing long-term care for society, or even their kids.
That’s the bottom line? People have to experience something severe or frightening and then associate it with Climate Change to make any meaningful changes of their own?
Sheesh. No wonder Al Gore framed it the way he did.
Bay, picture this: you have to move, so does your neighbor. Every single one of them. The places you’re going are less developed, so what roads will you be driving? Who’s going to build the home you’ll need? The schools, hospitals, stores and other necessary services? Who’s going to pay for it all? Unless you’re into the idea of moving to center of the country in a covered wagon, living in a dug out, and stealing farmland to feed yourself and your family, you will need infrastructure. Odds are what will happen is this: rich people will buy necessary resources to relocate, driving up prices so that you likely won’t be able to compete in that panicky, hyper inflated market. You – and just about everyone else in the middle class – will now live like a poor pioneer. There will be class warfare, crime, anger, illness and war. The way there always us during mass humanitarian crises.
Yes, katliamom, like most of the other responses, yours assumes a catastrophic occurrence, not one that will occur over time. In that case, we will handle it the way we handle all FEMA emergencies. Unless you are saying that every major city will be hit at the same time. Then it will be a problem. But there is not much we can do about everyone moving today. It will occur over time, and hopefully before a major disaster strikes. That is the best we can hope for.
@Bay, not an insult if it’s true.
Everything you’ve said on this thread points towards the conclusion that you just don’t give a damn about the increased suffering (and death) that climate change will bring to hundreds of million if not billions of people in this world, most of whom are simply to destitute (or restricted by national borders, laws, and xenophobia) to move away without major suffering.
And now I don’t give a damn about anyone’s suffering.
I’m flattered you expected me to come up with a solution for every problem on my own, Purple Titan. I have faith that there are more knowledgable people than I who can help solve climate change issues all over the world. I have not said a word about that not happening nor said it doesn’t matter.
Bay, Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Sandy are all examples of deadly disasters that happened literally overnight. Since climate change appears to be conducive to extreme weather patterns, it’s not alarmist to consider that these storms will not be anomalies in the near future. A few Sandys or Katrinas in a row and the coast will be like those volcano-ringed villages in Iceland. Pretty to look at, but I wouldn’t want to live there.
FWIW (probably nothing) , I didn’t read the comment that someone would be dead in 100 years when these hypotheticals are being purported, as an insult, but as a statement of fact. That said, there are many in SV working on resources/projects to prolong life, so who knows???
