Slashdot Log In
Inhabited Island Vanishes Forever Underwater
Posted by
Zonk
on Mon Dec 25, 2006 04:42 AM
from the seeya-later-island-guy dept.
from the seeya-later-island-guy dept.
PhreakOfTime writes "For the first time the rising ocean levels have washed away an inhabited island. Lohachara island was at one point home to some 10,000 people. It, along with several other spits of land near the Indian mainland, is now permanently underwater. From the article: ' As the seas continue to swell, they will swallow whole island nations, from the Maldives to the Marshall Islands, inundate vast areas of countries from Bangladesh to Egypt, and submerge parts of scores of coastal cities. Eight years ago ... the first uninhabited islands - in the Pacific atoll nation of Kiribati - vanished beneath the waves. The people of low-lying islands in Vanuatu, also in the Pacific, have been evacuated as a precaution, but the land still juts above the sea. The disappearance of Lohachara, once home to 10,000 people, is unprecedented.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Birth of an Island 136 comments
slashmojo writes that while some islands are sinking, last August another rose from the ocean, formed by volcanic activity and caught in the act by a passing yacht. From the article: "What looked like a brown stain on the South Pacific turned out to be a spectacular drift of floating pumice stones stretching more than 16 km — and an indication an island was being born nearby... 'We are getting emails from volcanologists saying this is so rare.'" Here is the blog post of the yachtsman who photographed the nascent island.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
But temperatures are rising on Mars! (Score:3, Funny)
[Republican parody mode off]
Re:But temperatures are rising on Mars! (Score:5, Insightful)
You get a clue at the intent of the piece when, in the first paragraph, you find out that the islands are part of a river delta. Well, you kind of find out. But nowhere does the piece just come out and say that river deltas are always changing shape, i.e. some parts wash away and other parts build up. Nope, right away there's a diatribelet about global warning right where there ought to be an explanation about how river delta islands come and go.
I've got an apocalyptic prediction to make:
If the story about these islands doesn't kick off a global panic there'll be another gas-inflated story, probably out of the Guardian, before January is done. Oh the humanity!
Parent
Re:But temperatures are rising on Mars! (Score:4, Informative)
Refer to a map, please, like this one [tuvaluislands.com]. Unless you're going to claim Tuvalu and Kiribati (you know, the other nations that are becoming "washed up") are part of the "Pacific Ocean River Delta" just to try to convince everyone you're right.
Parent
Re:But temperatures are rising on Mars! (Score:5, Insightful)
What everybody needs to understand is that Earth - as an environmental system - is always in a state of change. People don't like to hear that because people like to believe that they are in control of their surroundings. In reality, the environment and the ecosystems around us will move to adapt to any new stimuli introduced. This is what we (the public) lack an understanding of. If we continue to abuse the Earth by polluting the air as we are now, the ice caps might melt quite a bit. Okay, fine... but that is a short term, direct reaction. How will the world look in 100 years? 500 years?
No computer model is going to accurately predict that. Too many unknown variables in the equation. It might not be as bad as we are led to believe. Just something to keep in mind.... I personally support environmental reform, but not because of global warming threats.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't be such a follower. Do a little research before shooting your mouth off. When the "alternative explanation" is the real one, that mak
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you jump to Wikipedia and search for Lohachara Island, there are links to a few other articles on the topic. TFA is probably the worst written of all of them.
No, the Islands are SINKING (Score:3, Insightful)
Dammy
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:But temperatures are rising on Mars! (Score:5, Funny)
Clearly if Bush had signed the Kyoto death pact, and if the Senate which had voted 95-0 in 1998 had let him, then these islands would still be here and, for good measure, the earth will have been cooled by an astonishing and completely unmeasureable 0.07C by 2050.
We will now see the Slashdot approach to group censorship take effect. Your rights online?
Parent
Re:The corruption is really, really scary, actuall (Score:4, Insightful)
Blaming GWB in this conversation is petty. You can oppose his policies without blaming him for events that he didn't cause. But blaming him for everything you see is just intellectual bankruptcy.
Parent
Re:The corruption is really, really scary, actuall (Score:5, Insightful)
Either that, or the same ordinary process of erosion that sunk the former islands (now seamounts) of the northern part of the Hawaiian chain.
-jcr
Parent
Re:The corruption is really, really scary, actuall (Score:5, Insightful)
You want to watch out; hysteria is the rule of the day when it comes to global warming.
The facts don't support that global warming causes "sinking of islands." If islands sink, they do so for (relatively) local geological causes. The amount that the seas have risen in response to the (highly doubtful) global warming trend people so badly want to imagine is a matter of centimeters (currently running about 10 per century), and I submit to you all that if an island was mere centimeters from being overcome by the sea, then calling it "inhabitable" was stretching it a bit in any case. Yes, yes, the sea can rise a centimeter and a wave can get over something it previously could not, but really, storms produces wave action you can hardly imagine if you've not been out in the ocean on an isolated island.
The bottom line? Even if global warming is absolutely on target, it had nothing whatsoever with this island succumbing to the sea.
Before you have a cow about current sea level rise and what effects that might have, perhaps you should peruse this. [johnstonsarchive.net] Pay particular attention to the graph; note how unusual our current relative stability is over time, but look at the bottom line; sea level rise simply isn't enough to demonize for eating islands. Some land features will succumb to the sea in the normal course of events, and that is all we have here.
It never ceases to amaze me how readily people will accept a pointed finger if "global warming" is inserted anywhere in the accusation.
Parent
Re:Mod parent flamebait (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't say that calling global warming 'highly doubtful' is inflammatory. While I have no doubt that continued destruction and pollution of our environment will have profound if not irreversable negative impact on our planet, attributing the sinking of an island to global warming is irresponsible journalism at best.
While ocean levels are rising around the world, Arctic levels are falling http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322. stm [bbc.co.uk] and the model predicting the globabl warming trend cannot explain why.
Another unexplained action is while consensus is that the planet is getting warmer and glaciers are melting, the Antarctic ice sheet - by far the biggest in the word is actually growing larger: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_She et.htm [iceagenow.com]. Glaciers in California are also growing: http://dwb.sacbee.com/content/news/story/14317368p -15234887c.html [sacbee.com]
Given that the Northern Hemisphere at least is getting warmer, this is not entirely a bad thing as the food growing season is longer, and the increased productivity is an economic boon. From this government report on climate change: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalasses sment/overviewmidwest.htm [usgcrp.gov] "With an increase in the length of the growing season, double cropping, the practice of planting a second crop after the first is harvested, is likely to become more prevalent. The CO2 fertilization effect is likely to enhance plant growth and contribute to generally higher yields. The largest increases are projected to occur in the northern areas of the region, where crop yields are currently temperature limited."
But with the increase in global temperature, the worlds deserts would increase in size causing more environmental destruction you say? Not so - the Sahara desert, the largest desert in the world, is actually shrinking, again contrary to the global warming model. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17523610.300 -africans-go-back-to-the-land-as-plants-reclaim-th e-desert.html [newscientist.com]
So given all of these environmental observations (not minor discrepancies but huge anomalies) that are contrary to the global warming prediction, I think its perfectly acceptableto have doubts as to the actual cause of sinking islands.
Parent
GWB, erm, the US are part of the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
And you are, too, every time you come up with such retarded excuses like that ("he' not guilty of what happens now, just of what will happen later"). How dumb do you think you can be? How dumb do you think we are to believe such idiotic argument?
He could have done lots to improve Earth's situtation, if nothing more by setting an example for China to follow. Now China will pollute even more than the US, and you are gonna resort to double standards again. The usual phrase which always comes up is: "they can't do it because they will pollute _our_ air, but if someone can do it, better be the US, huh?".
It's not just a lame President. It's an entire nation of lame people. Congrats. We humans are so dumb we are 90% identical and cannot even agree to clean our rooms in our common building.
Parent
We haven't reached Kyoto levels... (Score:4, Informative)
Just to make my point more clear, here are some excerpts from Wikipedia article about Kyoto Protocol [wikipedia.org].
On June 28, 2006, the German government announced it would exempt its coal industry from requirements under the Kyoto agreement. Claudia Kemfert, an energy professor at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin said, "For all its support for a clean environment and the Kyoto Protocol, the cabinet decision is very disappointing. The energy lobbies have played a big role in this decision."
To date (October 2006), there is no legislative framework in place within the UK to guarantee year-on-year reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases.
The position of the EU is not without controversy in Protocol negotiations, however. One criticism is that, rather than reducing 8%, all the EU member countries should cut 15% as the EU insisted a uniform target of 15% for other developed countries during the negotiation while allowing itself to share a big reduction in the former East Germany to meet the 15% goal for the entire EU. Also, emission levels of former Warsaw Pact countries who now are members of the EU have already been reduced as a result of their economic restructuring. This may mean that the region's 1990 baseline level is inflated compared to that of other developed countries, thus giving European economies a potential competitive advantage over the U.S.
The good thing is that we are really doing something to make a difference, but we aren't making real progress in the issue. Further more many countries in the European Union have really unrealistic energy politics going i.e. Germany and Sweden who both made political decision to stop using nuclear power and who now buy more and more gas from Russia and electricity from other member countries. Today only Finland is building more nuclear power and France is the next country to do the same. If not all member countries don't educate their citizens and start to have rational energy policy which includes nuclear power, we as Europeans don't really have a position to shout to the US or rest of the world "Fuck you, you irresponsible pollution loving lunatics" when we are just as bad.
Parent
Re:The corruption is really, really scary, actuall (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, that's exactly wrong. We should be listening to (and watching) them, analyzing their words and actions, and we writing about what's wrong. If we ignore them, they won't go away; they'll continue their ongoing efforts to make maximum short-term profit while slowly degrading our world. The only way we can successfully fight such things is through knowledge and understanding, not by ignorance.
Remember the old adage "Know your enemy". And, we might add, publicise your enemy's behavior.
Parent
Re:Ongoing damage, political opposition to change (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost. But I wasn't getting that message from Bush.
The line he's been pushing is, to my knowledge:
In short, Bush is playing a very political game with the entire issue. He's not being scientific, he's being political. And the wonderful thing about politics is you don't have to actually do anything until there is overwhelming and indisputable proof to that effect or you can convince everyone that there is.
America didn't change course in policy on WWII until we were personally bombed. Overwhelming proof that Japan was bad. Invasion of Iraq is a testament to the amazing ability of the propaganda to do it's work and the even more impressive apathy we now take on the whole issue. Goebels would be proud of how well this has been run from the Whitehouse.
This global warming crap is being treated in about the same manner. Scientists are banned from public communications without proper screening by the Whitehouse staff. Proposals of any changes are mired in layers of something that makes it impossible to succeed.
Nothing will get done until people individually start making an issue of it in their lives. Buy diesel engines and then buy only bio-diesel. It's not cost effective to do so but you have to make that choice of what's important. Same thing with electric cars. And so on for electrical appliances, computers, energy efficiency.
If you have a house built, push the developer into a higher efficiency than anything he's seen before or find someone who can. It's going to cost more, but it's also going to drive the money into a new area of the industry. By moving where the money goes, you will move the attentions of the american industry and american politics.
Parent
Re:Ongoing damage, political opposition to change (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do I say gradual? Because much of the resistance to this idea currently is from people who just bought a suburban house and an SUV based on an assumption about the price of gasoline over the next 10 years. The general public will be much more likely to vote for a "5 cents per year" gasoline tax increase than a "50 cent" increase.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would ask why he needs a 6500 ft^2 McMansion. Surely he could make do with less and surely a 6500 ft^2 house has a larger negative environmental impact than a 1500 ft^2 one. That's like Al Gore, lecturing us about how we're all using too much while he and Tipper live in two different houses, one 10,000 ft^2 in Nashville and
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The north of USA is colder and gets more snow than Sweden, Norway or Finland's northern most areas, but they are decades behind Noway, Sweden and Finland when it comes to building standards. What in those countries would have been considered illegal, is the norm here.
If you lived here, you would probably have agreed with me that USA is a 1st world economy with a 3rd world society.
Now... or... 22 years ago? (Score:5, Informative)
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but compared to serious examination of [uea.ac.uk] long-term sea level trends [nasa.gov], one island isn't a very useful measuring stick.
Please join me in prayer (Score:3, Funny)
Do sea levels change differently around the globe? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it possible that sea levels could change in the Indian ocean while remaining constant in other parts of the globe? That's what seems odd here. Or is this likely to be local, run-of-the-mill geology at work, and people seeing what they (justifiably, IMHO) expect to see?
Re:Do sea levels change differently around the glo (Score:3, Insightful)
Sponsor? (Score:4, Funny)
Hope you liked it folks!
"unprecedented" (Score:5, Insightful)
Sssshhh! (Score:3, Funny)
Now, back to the gravy train...
Satellite photos (Score:5, Interesting)
"Forever"? (Score:3, Insightful)
It has happened in Europe, too (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordsand [wikipedia.org]
Plate tectonics means that some part of continents are rising, and some are falling. In Denmark, the northern part is rising, and the southern part is going down. Jordsand was located in the area that is going down. This means, that measured relatively to the ground, the water is "rising" in south Denmark and "falling" in north Denmark.
Here is a picture of the remains of the "Ferry farm" in Ræhr, Denmark:
http://www.saarup.dk/saarup2/johannespedersen.htm [saarup.dk]
From this place, there was once a ferry going to "Boat farm" in Hanstholm. Today, you drive this distance by car instead. Both farms are located in the middle of this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hanstholmen-ma
What has once been a collection of islands, is today countryside with a few lakes. More information about the former island of Hanstholm is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanstholm [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ræhr and Nytorp are both located on the former island of Hanstholm.
Sårup was once another island.
This lake is just between those two, and is the remainder of the North Atlantic Ocean's presence here:
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=14&ll=57.088282, 8.64521&sp [google.com]
WHERE are the rest? (Score:4, Interesting)
If this island has "been covered" (as opposed to having "sank") where are the rest of the islands that should also be completely covered by the sea?
Could it just possibly be an issue of that island sinking?
If not, then I think you've gone past blind faith.
Unprecedented (Score:5, Insightful)
The other day there was an article about the dolphins in China disappearing. Sure we clamour, "OMG, it's terrible. If we don't stop soon, we might be screwed. Aw, but what can we do, it's so hard. So uncertain, so...hey, can I have one of those bagels? Oh, yum." The other day I was talking with a group of 10 people about glacial melting and the rising sea level. They all nodded seriously and said, "Sure, but that is a theory and even then it would only happen in 50 years." I assure you, if I bring up this article, people will look just as serious, and then hop in their Hummer and drive to the gas station so they can go hiking on what used to be ski slopes.
Until about a million people are absolutely, beyond any doubt--beyond even the ability of the most resolutely blind dumbass moron I know's ability to doubt--are going to relocate or drown in their home because of rising sea level...and it has to be a first world country because otherwise, reminder: Nobody Really Gives a Fuck...until that point, I do not really want to hear about it.
Why should we all have to suffer with our feelings of the awful terrible things that will likely happen (but hopefully just after we die happily in our old age so our children can deal with it instead), when elected or otherwise empowered people will never act fast enough to ever avert any true crisis. I say, bring on the disasters. One after another. Because getting some practice at actually dealing with problems just might start building a habit of acting and instill some fear in a real problem, rather than the lurking possibility of a boogeyman or an Osama or little microbes that people will only act on enough to deprive others of their liberties, but never act on enough to actually address the issue since the issue isn't there yet. Isn't it ironic how proactive we are at doing terrible things when faced with a real problem, and how inactive we are at doing the good things? Well, it's not ironic at all. Good things are invariably more work and most people are inherently lazy, which is why 5% of the world has 90% of the wealth, and they wealthy are too busy driving around in hummers.
Wake me up when we're all drowning.
Ahem ... not global warming (Score:5, Informative)
It's a bit of a stretch to believe that a phenomenon that is (so far) too small to even measure with confidence could erase an island big enough to have a substantial population. It's a bit hard to tell because of the "noise", but it looks like the total sea level rise in the 20th Century was maybe 4-6 inches ... at most.
So what really happened to this island? Who knows -- either erosion or local sinking one suspects.
Wikipedia has a long article on global warming href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise" >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise.
And here's an article that says that the Sundabaran Islands of which Lohachara is (was?) a member are sinking at 3.4cm (about 1.4 inches) a year which is maybe 20 times the estimated rate of sea level rise from global warming. href="http://membrane.com/global_warming/notes/tig er.html">http://membrane.com/global_warming/notes/ tiger.html
This can be a good thing (Score:4, Funny)
step 2: a whole hurd of weasely frivolous lawyers stampede to get there as soon as possible
step 3: they get there but there is no way out
step 4: water level rises
step 5: happy times!
See? Every cloud has it's silver lining.
Subsidence (Score:3, Interesting)
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?news
(Kolkata Newsline)
Careful measurements of sea level change around the globe show similar numbers. Larger reported changes are usually due to subsidence (sinking land), erosion, annual rain (monsoon, hurricane) related flooding and poor land management. Talk a walk on your nearest beach and figure out how many years it would take at three mm/year before anything interesting would happen. Or be noticed.
Nothing new here... (Score:5, Insightful)
And on that subject. I could be mistaken here but I always learned at school that ice, in contrary to other materials, expanded when it was frozen. Thats why you get your broken waterpipes if they freeze up. When it melts then the water shrinks again. So how does the melting of the polar caps make the sea rise when the whole mass is actually shrinking?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This Entire Article is FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, it's not unprecedented. In fact, as other posters have pointed out, islands have come and gone for all of recorded history.
Thirdly, the island appears to actually have dissapeared 22 years ago. It's part of a freaking river delta, guys.
I'm not smart enough to make a call on Global Warming. Maybe you guys are. But I do know enough to see that for all of recorded history, there have been large sections of the population that believe the world is ending. In EVERY instance, this is due to some sins of mankind. Repent! Say the believers. Repent now and perhaps we will all be spared! If this same slant was in a technology article, most of you would be calling FUD. Well I call it on this. This article is total crap.
That's not saying GW is false, that's saying that when trying to extrapolate long-term trends from short term inputs in a chaotic system a little humility is in order. Articles like this one make the whole GW movement look like a bunch of knee-jerk idiots. The science deserves better treatment than this. The public deserves a higher level of discussion than stories that can be tossed out after five minutes of inspection. FUD is no way to make a technology buy, or have a serious discussion about science.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of my comment was that the article was using FUD -- Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. This is a really bad method of persuasion used by every con-man and religion from time immemorial.
Aside from your moral posturing -- "we will not get instant gratification from our selfless sacrifice" -- I don't understand what your point is. Something about economics? Yet you make no economic case for any
The land is sinking... (Score:3, Informative)
Always follow the MONEY (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, the article doesn't even have the date correct for when the island disappeared..22 years ago (that would be 1988). So let's dispense with accuracy right there..
Second, the river delta in question is FAMOUS for flooding and killing/displacing hundreds of thousands...geez it's the drainage basin for the freakin Himalayan mountain range...
Bangladesh is in bottom quintile in per capita GDP.
and finally, lets not forget this article..
'Bangladesh floods: rich nations 'must share the blame'
http://www.scidev.net/Editorials/index.cfm?fuseac
pretty much lays it out...they're after money..
'In future, therefore, when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation, appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability, to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible.'
this is all sponsored and written under the auspices of that famously neutral organization the U.N.
this is a giant effort at laying the groundwork for demanding monetary compensation, not aid, for flooding that has been going on FOREVER in that country. These islands didn't "sink", they where washed away 22 years ago from flooding, that has been going on for millenia....
in the enviromental arena...it's never about the enviroment, it's always about money, and getting someone who has it, to fork it over to someone else, who wants it.
Asian Brown Cloud -- Perhaps it plays a role? (Score:3, Interesting)
An extensive impact study of the Asian Brown Cloud can be found Here [unep.org].
Also some "Quick Facts" on the Asian Brown Cloud may be found Here [adb.org].
And well, if you just Google it [google.com], you can become a complete expert!
Could Asia be doing itself in here? Surely, the ABC has a significant impact on their environment that simply cannot be ignored -- unless, that it, your goal is to milk the West of money. But hey, perhaps the ABC is having a significant impact on our climate here in the West and perhaps we should be bilking them for money!
Ain't Geopolitics grand?
Our Inconvenient Truth. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the most dangerous "stinkin' thinkin'" going on in the US today. Great Gramma and Great Grandpa are to blame for the CO2 problem we have today, so technically it is not my problem. If I'm to blame for the CO2 problem that my great grandkids have to live with, then at least I'll be dead and won't have to listen to them complain.
At the very least humans have muddied the environmental waters to the point that we cannot pinpoint exactly what we have caused and what is natural cyclic environmental behaviour. And because of this we have no way of knowing how much we are accelerating any natural cyclical events beyond what is natural. And yet, any mention of sacrifice or change on our part is still dealt with viciously and remorselessly.
Unfortunately, those who believe that change and sacrifice are for those other countries will never realize that they are giving up a perfect opportunity to create multiple industries that can make the oil and coal industries look like child's play. Their panicky death grip on the status quo will never allow them to see the opportunities that the US has missed already, or what we will soon be completely missing out on. Those who have been fighting change the most viciously are the same ones who, in ten years, will be shrieking "Why are we licensing wind and solar technology from Europe? Why can't our auto manufacturers sell to Asia or Europe? Why is our economy slowly weakening while Asia and Europe are getting stronger?"
It's a matter of economics. A majority of the rest of the world gets it, but so far we have not and that does not bode well for America's future.
Re:Our Inconvenient Truth. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since we will not get instant gratification from our selfless sacrifice to clean up our CO2 emissions, it isn't worth doing.
You fail to do justice by misrepresenting or misunderstanding opposing viewpoints. It's not an issue of instant gratification to wonder if the sacrifices warrant the benefit.
That is the most dangerous "stinkin' thinkin'" going on in the US today. Great Gramma and Great Grandpa are to blame for the CO2 problem we have today, so technically it is not my problem. If I'm to blame for the CO2 problem that my great grandkids have to live with, then at least I'll be dead and won't have to listen to them complain.
"Stinkin' thinkin'"? Sounds like one of the cheap and pointless little slogans that green propaganda generates. How about more rational concerns rather than just the most stupid of opposing arguments?
At the very least humans have muddied the environmental waters to the point that we cannot pinpoint exactly what we have caused and what is natural cyclic environmental behaviour. And because of this we have no way of knowing how much we are accelerating any natural cyclical events beyond what is natural. And yet, any mention of sacrifice or change on our part is still dealt with viciously and remorselessly.
The phrase is "crying wolf" and it's something that is routinely done by less responsible elements of the pro-environment side. I gather society is growing increasingly resistant to such warnings because so many have turned out to be waste of time (eg, high profile garbage disposal issues such as washable versus disposal diapers and mandatory recycling of uneconomic materials such as paper, glass, and most plastics). Also, a lot of people work in the industries that are demonized and threatened by the irresponsible. This alienation is one of several factors poisoning the water in global warming and other genuine environmental issues.
Unfortunately, those who believe that change and sacrifice are for those other countries will never realize that they are giving up a perfect opportunity to create multiple industries that can make the oil and coal industries look like child's play. Their panicky death grip on the status quo will never allow them to see the opportunities that the US has missed already, or what we will soon be completely missing out on. Those who have been fighting change the most viciously are the same ones who, in ten years, will be shrieking "Why are we licensing wind and solar technology from Europe? Why can't our auto manufacturers sell to Asia or Europe? Why is our economy slowly weakening while Asia and Europe are getting stronger?"
I suspect we agree that clinging to the status quo isn't good, but I think we might disagree with what the problem is. My take is that the problem is that US labor just isn't as valuable as it used to be. The education system especially in the public schools isn't working properly. Too much wealth is being wasted on grossly inefficient health insurance systems. As I see it, the US worker is too expensive and relatively speaking growing less capable. That's why the US economy is weakening. Rather than address these problems, the US is selling off its capital to the rest of the world.
Another thing that bugs me is the assumption that investing in "green" technologies will automatically result in an increase in the standard of living. My take is that even without substantial subsidies and externalities (handled through such things as sane carbon emission markets), various fossil fuels still beat these technologies. I have no problem with eliminating these subsidies and charging for externalities so we can rationally trade in fossil fuel and alternate energy markets, but my take is that the environmental side is still exaggerating the harm fossil fuel burning causes.
It's a matter of economics. A majority of the rest of the world gets it, but so far we have not and that does not bode well for America's future.
At least anothe
Parent
Old news. Literally. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:First Time? (Score:5, Insightful)
At the time Thermopylae was a pass bordered by cliffs on one side and the sea on the other so narrow that one man with a spear could hold it.
Now it is wide enough that a tank battalion could traverse it side by side.
Things are not always as simple as they might appear and the world is not, nor has it ever been a static place. Islands have both dissapeared and appeared throughout mankind's term on this earth.
Works of man may certainly nudge things here and there in particular directions, but the idea that the world as it is is "normal" and must, nevermind can, be held in its current form is arrogance born of ignorance.
The only thing constant is change.
KFG
Parent
Re:First Time? (Score:5, Insightful)
What I am doing is pointing out that the idea that there are "two sides of the argument" is an idiocy. There is no "argument" in the first place.
the fact is people have historically settled very near water and if that water moves real people get screwed.
I currently live on a flood plain. Before moving here I lived on an estuarial flood plain. I'm now simply a bit further inland on a tributary to that estuary. I have twice this year watched the waters rise toward my house. They never reached my house, but my small collection of crops was untterly destroyed. I have had to help neighbors leave their homes by boat.
I am not ignorant of the devestation that flooding can cause. The farm my mother grew up on was ultimately permantly destroyed by the one-two punch of the Great Hurricane of '38 (her entire town went eight feet underwater. My great-grandmother lost her store) and the hurricane of '44.
If you could excavate the bottom of Long Island sound you might very well find evidence of human habitation. 12,000 years ago it was a fertile valley; now it is a branch of the Atlantic Ocean. Nothing people did either caused nor could have prevented this.
What "other side of the argument" is there in this? Shit happened. Shit always happens. Get used to it. It doesn't stop the shit from happening, but hysteria is not a very effective coping mechanism.
KFG
Parent
Google has the pic (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)