Among the many good points brought up in Chaoslillith’s thought-provoking rant and attached comments is the seeming lack of urgency on the part of politicians—and citizens—on the subject of climate change.
Despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the IPCC, despite the recent, terrifying re-modeling by James Hansen, et. al. predicting a ten-foot sea level rise in as little as 50 years, a poll released November 30 found a drop in the number of Americans who mark it a “serious” problem. Gallup’s January Election Benchmark Survey found voters in neither party placed it in the top concerns that will shape their choices in November’s elections.
The average American believes man-made climate change is real, is probably a big deal and is something we should “do something about” sometime. Sooner or later. We’re smart and we’ll be able to stop it before it’s really, really bad.
I wonder if it’s time to do some serious heavy lifting in the meme department, call up Overton Window Transport, Ltd. Because, as the more-intelligent-than-average readers of this site understand, climate change isn’t something that’s “going to happen.” It’s something that has already happened and is going to affect us more and faster.
While it’s important to continue lobbying for renewable energy and fighting against the entrenched interests of the fossil fuel industries, it may be time to start asking the really scary question:
Where are we going to put the people?
Hansen’s predictions for a ten-foot mean sea level rise aren’t crazy. They simply add into existing models the phenomenon of increased rate of ice sheet melt, something that, in hindsight, seems crazy not to have thought about before.
And, if the new predictions are realistic, it means that, in a few decades, millions of Americans are going to have to move somewhere.
Many, many millions. The site Climate Central has put together a series of maps and a list of cities and towns that would be affected by a ten-foot rise (which, at the time they were assembling the project, was considered a century-plus problem). In the top ten largest cities alone there are 2,462,000 Americans who are going to have to move. In the hundreds (thousands?) of smaller communities awaiting the ocean are millions more.
Where are we going to put them? What’s going to happen to the host communities? Will evacuees get to choose their destinations or will choices be made for them?
What about the real property that must be left behind? Will owners be compensated? How? Climate Central touches on that issue--briefly—for just two areas affected:
For example, more than 32,000 miles of road and $950 billion of property currently sit on affected land in Florida. Threatened property in New York and New Jersey totals more than $300 billion. And New England states all face important risks.
What about property that's valuable to more than just its owners? Port Fouchon, in my state, is the home of a refining/storage/pipeline complex that processes a fifth of America’s fuel. Last estimated cost of replacing that complex topped $100 billion. People who don’t want to “do something” about climate change because “I like my truck!” should start facing the question, “Where are you going to get the gas for it?”
As long as voters are allowed to believe that climate change isn’t an “immediate” concern, that issues like the economy and terrorism are more important, they won’t demand their leaders address it. It’s perfectly understandable. People care about what they perceive affects them and their families.
Maybe we should start asking them: “Where exactly is your family going to live?”
Because it sure as shooting isn’t Miami. Or Boston. Or downtown Manhattan. Or my dear, beloved New Orleans.
Where are we going to put the people?
And a small Update: Ask your representatives: Where would you like your office moved?