SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: E who wrote (1855)3/8/2002 7:03:30 PM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (2) of 21057
 
I suggest that be a high priority discussion at the governmental level.

I can understand the case for not going whole hog to stave off global warming. I can rationalize "que sera, sera" given the uncertainty. What I think we should be giving some serious thought, is how we would deal with it if it happened. Contingency planning. So we're not caught flat-footed like we were on 9/11.

Right now, people who live at the shore or in flood plains still think that the government should protect them from high water and/or help compensate them for their losses. I don't think that we should take that approach, but the money involved is small. What are we going to do when those situations mushrooms.

Will we feel obligated to help corn producers in Nebraska maintain the viability of their farms for corn if the climate changes? Will we start huge projects to redirect water to where it used to be? Or do research on cloud seeding? Will we subsidize Palm Springs to tear down resorts and start growing corn? Or maybe we'll have a project to get people to switch from corn to the gila monsters that now live in what were once corn fields. Do we provide a home in Kansas for the family whose home in Florida is now under water?

In other words, are we going to go with the flow or try to maintain the climactic status quo? And who will pay the price of change? And how much might it cost? Maybe we don't want to pay to avoid a climate change that may not come because that would be a lot of money, but shouldn't we at least pay for some eggheads to get together and come up with some alternatives on how to deal with it if it happens?

Karen
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News