Hey, there! Log in / Register
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
And the comments
are rivaling the Herald in stupidity.
Lol, you're giving the Herald commentors too much credit
But unfortunately there were some problems with that Glob article that allowed for legitimate critism. For example, I have to agree with the commentor that pointed out that using a visual of the 2009 Hatteras Island breach was irrelevant - it's a narrow barrier island and that breach occurred at the narrowest and lowest point (even the top elevation is a mere 56 feet). The breach had much more to do with direct human impact on the island's structure than long term climate change.
And the interactive graphic of sea level on Boston flood risks, as one commentor pointed out, was inaccurately presented by default. Modern proofreading requires checking on stuff like this, and the Glob failed in this case.
But yes, there were also comments from people who seemed to be deliberately misapprehending what was written (eg, assuming that current reported rise in sea level could be simply extrapolated to correspond with predicted century levels, apparently missing repeated uses of the word 'accelerating'). And there was the inevitable ad hominem - but at so less a vicious level as one sees in the Herald.
Hmm
I am one of those commenting on that very article at the Globe. We didn't miss the term, "accelerating," we noted it has not yet been shown to be doing so by the physical record, and that all references to accelerating were "predicted." Not seen, predicted.
De Nile
It's a river in Egypt ... and, soon, areas of Boston given the rate of sea level rise.
All of the deniers are welcome to buy property in low-lying areas just to *prove* us all wrong when they end up in New Venice ... just don't expect to get any bargains on insurance, as that's a reality-based for-profit industry.
No it's not
Most if not all residential flood insurance is under the National Flood Insurance program. My friend lived in an area by a small brook that flooded three times in three years - and had no problem getting insurance because the government guaranteed it - she paid very little for the insurance and got hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlements. She got tired of the hassle of renovating every year, sold it for over $1 million (Rye, NY) and now the new owners and their neighbors are all raising their houses up on 8 foot foundations. No private company would ever do that - they'd raise the rates to unaffordable levels or just drop 'em and tell them to eat it. But the government just keeps this nonsense going. John Stossel of Gimme a break fame had a segment a few years back saying that the government paid to rebuild his beachfront home 2-3 times.
Now that's denial.
Explain this, then
Why are the same people who are insisting that Climate Change and sea level rise that goes with it are a liberal conspiracy by the Obama government, then insuring their otherwise uninsurable homes with government-subsidized policies?
That's reality fail if there ever was.
Oh, I'd say it's pretty equal opportunity reality fail
Probably half those seaside homes are owned and insured by blood sucking conservatives who don't compost their trash and engage in other unseemly, antisocial behavior.
The other half are owned by armchair liberals who think we should all pay more taxes, but they shouldn't pay fair value for their insurance because it's included in the taxes that they already don't pay their fair share of voluntarily or otherwise, but love to tell the rest of us that they should pay more.
Same story on both sides, only different.
Personally I think I'd bust a gut if the government told both sides that this is a complete waste of taxpayer money, the entire program has been cancelled and if they can't get private insurance they should self insure.
Please provide the name of
Please provide the name of one such person who falls into both of those categories.
Easy.
Bob Lutz.
It's not a matter of "if"
Exactly, Stevil. I grew up in a coastal town, and it's not a matter of "if" a house gets whacked, but "when" it gets whacked. We'd watch the same house get whacked and rebuilt a number of times over the years. That's not insurance, it's a gift.
I blame
the dogs that sh*t in the park.
Little f*ckers.
Toughen up, nancies
If the yinzers in Pittsburgh haven't shriveled up and died every time they go underwater, I'm sure we can survive too.
There wouldn't be a Back Bay if EPA existed!
Quit your complaining. Much of Boston and Cambridge wouldn't even exist if we had today's EPA and environmental laws in the 1800's protecting wetlands. Likely no railroads or industrial revolution either. Few 1930's WPA projects. Few 1960's Interstates. Nothing much would have gotten done.
*Eyeroll*
Could it be there are some good reasons for that? Like, adverse experience?
And there won't be a Back Bay
Next time a moderate to severe quake hits Boston, there probably won't be much of a Boston left besides our towers (those anchored to bedrock) and parts of Southie, Charlestown, Beacon Hill and East Boston.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8J_xnss-zY
The bible says something about building on sand. That the EPA extends that to flood plains isn't a bad idea. Keep it exclusively to farmers and insure them again 100 year floods, but otherwise don't allow dense development.
Humans are horrible in long term planning and risk mitigation, and using our brains to better our impulses is prudent and helps protect wealth in the long run.
You wouldn't be enjoying
You wouldn't be enjoying cocktails at the restaurants along clean Boston Harbor these days if the Clean Water Act didn't exist either.
Time to use the present tense.
Even the lower levels of sea level rise we're seeing right now is enough to cause problems.
Every millimeter of rise forces us to use more electricity at the Charles River and Mystic River dams during high tide (to keep the Charles Basin a freshwater basin and not a foul smelling estuary).
Every millimeter or rise means we spend more on power to pump water out of the tunnels (airport tunnels, big dig, every subway line) and more on maintenance on all of them.
Every millimeter of rise means our storm drains have less of a drop to help them during storms, so they don't do as good a job protecting our lower lying areas.
This isn't a matter of when. It's a matter of now.
It's also not a matter of "why"
since we clearly can't do anything to stop it.
Adapt or die.
Bummmer; No Access To Bostonglobe.com
When I clicked on the article and noticed that it was from bostonglobe.com and not boston.com, I thought that I could access the rest of the site without having registered with the paywall. Bummer, I made it to the home page, but no farther.
Here it is
On the non-pay BDC site:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/art...
Hey now!
Don't go gettin all rational and shit.
What annoys me about this
is that they act as if one day, the sea will magically rise 15 feet and all of Boston will be underwater. No. It's gradual. Let's hire some Dutch engineers already and build us some dams and dikes. It's not too late *yet*
Worked Great
For New Orleans!
we seem to have a problem with building and maintaining infrastructure lately. Not sure a second big "wall" is such a good idea.
Venice in Boston
Sea level rise may be gradual, but then again it's all about scale. This whole process is happening at lightening speed in a geological sense. And although the sea level rise may be gradual in a human sense, the frequency and intensity of shitty-ass storms is also increasing with human-induced climate change and at a human-scale. The storm surges are greater and they're getting a few inches headstart on the shore relative to a hundred years ago. Put those two factors together and you have tunnel pumps being overwhelmed, coastal roads washed out, houses swamped, etc. (So maybe the photo in the article isn't completely out of whack, except it's illustrating the intense storm action and not necessarily sea level rise aspect of climate change.)
Aside from the tunnels we should probably be thinking about something as vital to the economy as an airport being out there in the harbor.
As far as earthquakes go, we're so screwed in that department. But again that's potentially out of the human time scale and into the meteor impact level of planning (i.e., I don't give a shit, I'll be dead by the time it happens).