No, I think if it is really happening that there isn't much we could do about it unless we want to send the world into poverty.
I can respect this line of thinking, though I would argue there must be a way to avoid sending the world into poverty. I do agree that doing so would be a problem of equal severity, but disagree that it would be the ultimate effect. Besides, most of the world IS in poverty.
If I was 100% sure a) it was happening to the degree suggested (i.e. much of the low lying world underwater in 50 years) and b) we could actually stop it, I'd be in favor of spending the cash. But I'm not there yet. I saw a recent statistic that 1 billion people a year are entering the middle class worldwide. The worlds a far better place than it was even 30 years ago.
There won't be more than an inch or two of sea level rise for most coastlines in the next 50 years, but the next 75-100 years of sea rise is pretty much already done/in motion. How bad it gets from there is what we can control. I agree the world is a better place than 30 years ago, but it won't be a better place than now in 30 years the way things are going. I am skeptical of the 1 billion a year figure. There are 7 billion people on Earth. Some must have been middle class or better before.
gotcha. your number seems lower than most suggest no? why won't it be better? most of the world population wise is in emerging economies. China and India by itself could provide a big chunk of that. but obviously you can't have a billion a year for 10 years or whatever.
My number isn't lower than most. That is in line with IPCC numbers. The rising levels are back-loaded. In other words, the rate of rise now and for the next couple of decades is much less than the rate of rise projected for the second half of the 21st century and beyond. When you see the 7 to 9 inch figures, most of that will occur in the last 25 years of the century. The sucky thing about this issue is that the doubters will be dead when they are clearly the *******s.
never happens. . . http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ncovered-in-north-carolina/?intcmp=latestnews her staff has identified 765 registered North Carolina voters who appear to have cast ballots in two states during the 2012 presidential election. WRAL.com reported that 81 residents who died before election day were recorded as casting a ballot. While about 30 of those voters appear to have legally cast ballots before election day, Strach said "there are between 40 and 50 [voters] who had died at a time that that's not possible."
Some of those are going to be errors, as the story mentions. And of what is less, it will still be a tiny amount of people. "Dead people voting" is sometimes a case of people with the same name- one being dead and one not. Just pointing that out, I don't expect it will take any wind out of your sails on this.
