Re: Global Warming
Posted by Southern Man on May 09, 2002 at 08:32
Re: Global Warming (DA Morgan)
>According to published reports the island nation of Kiribati will be no more before this century is over.
There are also published reports that people from Venus have taken over the US government also.
For these islands to be no more would require that the highest point would have to be submerged. That is 81 meter above sea level. You can’t fail to see that 81 meters is not the same as a few centimeters. Even if we assume the problem is that the problem is really erosion rather than a rise in sea level, how can you believe that a few centimeters rise in sea level could suddenly cause erosion of 81 meters of coral that wouldn’t occur anyway?
Assuming for the moment however that all 33 islands in the group will be gone; would this be such a great loss with no possibility for a greater good? The GDP of the people on these islands is $850/year/capita. 25-50% of the GDP comes from foreign aid. There is no arable land on the islands. The population growth rate is 2.3%. Life expectancy is barely 60.
Instead of the US spending trillions of dollars trying to stop a few centimeter rise with no guarantee that these islands won’t sink anyway, why not “invest” 0.01% of that amount to guarantee a permanent solution of this “problem”? There are approximately 100,000 people to be moved. For $100 million we can afford $1,000 moving expense for every man woman and child to move them anywhere in the world. That should be more than enough. If not we could raise that to $10 million per person and still be ahead. Why do we have to waste so much money trying to create a temporary solution with no guarantees when real solutions are so readily available?
- Re: Global Warming DA Morgan 09/5 14:04 (10)
- Re: Global Warming Southern Man 10/5 11:09 (9)
- Re: Global Warming DA Morgan 10/5 11:12 (8)
- Re: Global Warming Southern Man 11/5 09:09 (7)
- Re: Global Warming DA Morgan 13/5 13:20 (6)
Post a Followup