this is an article from earlier this year but it remains one of the more enlightening looks at how climate change is impacting people in America already. on some level it's morbidly fascinating to...
this is an article from earlier this year but it remains one of the more enlightening looks at how climate change is impacting people in America already. on some level it's morbidly fascinating to think that there are places that exist today which won't in the future, especially in such a "modern" country as America. sometimes i think it can also be easy to feel like climate change won't affect "us" like it might in other countries, when the reality is that plenty of places in America will be just as affected as other parts of the world. this article brings it a little closer to home.
"The cost-benefit calculus — more than $1 billion to protect fewer than 7,000 people — always weighed against him." It bothers me that someone could look at that and decide it's worth the cost. I...
"The cost-benefit calculus — more than $1 billion to protect fewer than 7,000 people — always weighed against him."
It bothers me that someone could look at that and decide it's worth the cost. I understand that it must be difficult to come to terms with losing your home, but a billion dollars for 7,000 people? That's so shortsighted. The earth doesn't belong to us, it's not ours to do whatever we want with. We're a part of it.
i think it's understandable that people would want to stay where they feel they belong in the world–but yes, the idea of spending so much to save so few people always did strike me as somewhat...
i think it's understandable that people would want to stay where they feel they belong in the world–but yes, the idea of spending so much to save so few people always did strike me as somewhat short-sighted in the grand scheme of things. i do think there's a valid case to be made sometimes for the places people end up plopping themselves being preserved where and when possible because you can't ever truly replace a place's culture or a person's homeland, but realistically for a billion dollars you could likely resettle the entire town and then some in a better place where land loss and flooding would no longer be an issue for them, rather than slapping them behind levees and hoping for the best just because they've been there for so long. at some point it's just not really a viable tactic for how much it'd cost.
I've been thinking about how to cope with the climate changing for a couple months now and realizing just how many things that we need to change if we want to stop everything from going to shit....
I've been thinking about how to cope with the climate changing for a couple months now and realizing just how many things that we need to change if we want to stop everything from going to shit. And even easier stuff like encouraging more fuel-efficient cars and promoting renewable sources of energy get fought against. I just don't know how we come out of this with a world and a humanity that looks anything like what we have today. I'm trying to do my part by eating less meat, driving less, using less energy, and avoiding using plastic products but even if I did my best (and I'm not) it's not enough.
this is an article from earlier this year but it remains one of the more enlightening looks at how climate change is impacting people in America already. on some level it's morbidly fascinating to think that there are places that exist today which won't in the future, especially in such a "modern" country as America. sometimes i think it can also be easy to feel like climate change won't affect "us" like it might in other countries, when the reality is that plenty of places in America will be just as affected as other parts of the world. this article brings it a little closer to home.
"The cost-benefit calculus — more than $1 billion to protect fewer than 7,000 people — always weighed against him."
It bothers me that someone could look at that and decide it's worth the cost. I understand that it must be difficult to come to terms with losing your home, but a billion dollars for 7,000 people? That's so shortsighted. The earth doesn't belong to us, it's not ours to do whatever we want with. We're a part of it.
i think it's understandable that people would want to stay where they feel they belong in the world–but yes, the idea of spending so much to save so few people always did strike me as somewhat short-sighted in the grand scheme of things. i do think there's a valid case to be made sometimes for the places people end up plopping themselves being preserved where and when possible because you can't ever truly replace a place's culture or a person's homeland, but realistically for a billion dollars you could likely resettle the entire town and then some in a better place where land loss and flooding would no longer be an issue for them, rather than slapping them behind levees and hoping for the best just because they've been there for so long. at some point it's just not really a viable tactic for how much it'd cost.
I've been thinking about how to cope with the climate changing for a couple months now and realizing just how many things that we need to change if we want to stop everything from going to shit. And even easier stuff like encouraging more fuel-efficient cars and promoting renewable sources of energy get fought against. I just don't know how we come out of this with a world and a humanity that looks anything like what we have today. I'm trying to do my part by eating less meat, driving less, using less energy, and avoiding using plastic products but even if I did my best (and I'm not) it's not enough.