[Hawkcreek]

It's flipping obvious. Look at where the two places in the OP are on a map. Now if all the coastal villages west of Anchorage are allowed to fail & be abandoned, what makes this region part of the USA? Nobody will move there, no Americans anyhow. Ok, so now it's empty of American citizens, who or what holds up American sovereignty across this vast, inhospitable, but abundant with resources region? What moral or ethical claim does the US hold over this region, now or in that future? By sustaining a population there, even a tiny aboriginal one, an imperative is maintained. Abandoning it reduces the statement of claim to the point where if Japan, China, Russia are hungry enough, they may just decide hey nobody there, lots of fish, let's go. None of which applies to Florida. Ask anyone involved in frontier military planning if it's a good idea to abandon western Alaska.

One thing that may not be obvious from the map is that some fairly large cities - Nome and Kotzebue, for example have a good bit of high ground to retreat to. Western Alaska will not be depopulated if a couple of small villages have disappeared.

[SeaGypsy]

I see it very similar to the north west coast of Australia, in that a couple of very small cities along with dozens of aboriginal outpost villages, constitute Australian occupation of the region. Empty out those villages leaving only the micro cities, would substantially undermine Australian sovereign claim to the entire region. I don't think the situation in Alaska is much different in geopolitical terms, with highly populated countries nearby. I'm pretty sure the OP was about the question, why save this little village but not perhaps parts of Florida etc. We already have piles of discussion about the insurance set up on the lower 49, why this thread became another when that isn't the topic of the OP? Naval gazing.

[GHung]

SG said; "Ok, so now it's empty of American citizens, who or what holds up American sovereignty across this vast, inhospitable, but abundant with resources region? What moral or ethical claim does the US hold over this region, now or in that future? By sustaining a population there, even a tiny aboriginal one, an imperative is maintained."

That wouldn't be Newtok. Look at a map. There are a lot of places in Alaska closer to Asia, including several villages on Nelson Island, where the people of Newtok plan to move. There are also villages farther north on the mainland coast, like Nome.

As for "turned this into another thread about coastal insurance"; insurance, or lack of it, has a lot to do with "Who Gets Saved", the title of the thread. It also goes to who "belongs" in these coastal communities, and who have assets there simply because they chose to live there and could afford to (and can afford to foist the liabilities of their being there on others).

As far as I can tell, the people of Newtok have received a million dollars to build a dock at their new home. The folks who built high-end developments on the US east coast have received billions, either via insurance or through government rebuilding infrastructure over and over. I certainly think that's pertinent.

As for the Cajuns in Louisiana, as Rockman said, they've been sinking for centuries. They're used to it. Most of them I've known there wouldn't want to live anywhere else, come hell or high water.

[Hawkcreek]

As for the Cajuns in Louisiana, as Rockman said, they've been sinking for centuries. They're used to it. Most of them I've known there wouldn't want to live anywhere else, come hell or high water.

That's a fact. They look at a flood as an excuse to cook a good gumbo for the whole neighborhood, while they raise the pilings another couple of feet.
Some of the happiest people I have ever met.

[SeaGypsy]

Fine, I'm glad some people know a lot more than me about the areas involved. Also that the discussion reflects on the actual OP, which doesn't appear to be yet another general coastal insurance intro. Cheers.

[KaiserJeep]

"The world, it is getting warmer..."

Hurray, we can agree on something, KJ. (And nice use of topic-comment syntactic structure! https://books.google.com/books?id=-GrpD ... sh&f=false)

Perhaps you are starting to take tiny steps towards accepting the reality that very basic physics and the overwhelming scientific consensus has made clear.

Let us know if you have any questions about things as they start to become clearer to you. Just out of curiosity, do you have any favorite alternative explanations for the warming?

I always have been way beyond you. You can figure out the world is warming, and has been on a warming trend for all of recorded History, just by studying the topic.

Now YOU need to take the next step. CC is happening, whatever the root cause, and it can't be dealt with, it can't be reasoned with, it does not care whether you believe or not, and it absolutely will not stop until the Climatic Optimum is reached for another 200-2000 years, at which point it will be about 6 degrees C warmer on the whole Earth, the Northern ice cap will be gone, the remnant Southern ice will be some really impressive glaciers on the mountains of the then Sub-Temperate climate (probably forested and occupied by millions of humans) continent of Antarctica, and the oceans will be tens of feet higher than today.

Not a damned thing you are all humans collectively can do about that. In fact it is completely and totally irrelevant whether burning FF's hastened the whole warming process. So I have just one question for you.

Are you going to quit bitching about AGW, and who won the argument, and do something to help yourself and your descendants live, or will you go on with your useless and pathetic life as a keyboard queen?

The answer really does not matter to me. The question was entirely for your benefit.

[GHung]

Fine, I'm glad some people know a lot more than me about the areas involved. Also that the discussion reflects on the actual OP, which doesn't appear to be yet another general coastal insurance intro. Cheers.

The conversation has been about more than coastal insurance, SG. The issue, as I see it, is the cost of relocating groups of people, often as the result of previous human behavior, and who pays the costs. Is society-at-large responsible for those costs? Are certain people entitled to this social safety net, and not others? Who decides, with what criteria? How much more debt should we create to support these problems? Should individuals be responsible for their own futures? Lots of question to answer. Yet another case:

Their Soil Toxic, 1,100 Indiana Residents Scramble to Find New Homes

.....The extent of the contamination came as a shock to residents of the complex, even though it is just north of a huge former U.S.S. Lead smelting plant and on top of a smaller former smelting operation, in an area that was designated a Superfund site in 2009. Now, in a situation that many fearful residents are comparing to the water crisis in Flint, Mich., they are asking why neither the state nor the Environmental Protection Agency told them just how toxic their soil was much sooner, and a timeline is emerging that suggests a painfully slow government process of confronting the problem....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/31/us/le ... .html?_r=0

So far, less than a $million to move these folks., but I'm betting the legal vultures are circling in a big way. Who pays? The EPA first reported this problem in 2008. That's an entire lifetime for some of the children that live there, but, then again, it's public housing, and Governments have lots of priorities.

Wondering where Governor Pence comes down on this.

Anyway, it's like most of our predicaments that were predicted but not addressed pro-actively. Singling out a village in Alaska doesn't seem very useful.

[dohboi]

"has been on a warming trend for all of recorded History"

Uhoh, KJ is off his meds again.

Not sure what you mean by 'recorded History' (nor why you decided that 'history' should be capitalized), but for the last 7 thousand years (most of which time there has been writing, so that pretty well covers the usual concept of 'history' capitalized or not) or so the atmosphere has been gradually cooling, at the rate of about .1 degree C per millennium...that is up till the industrial revolution started spewing billions of tons of carbon into the air and consequently--due to the very basic, well understood physics of the electromagnetic absorption spectrum of CO2--global temperature have been skyrocketing.



https://www.climate.gov/news-features/c ... y%E2%80%9D

On the other front, I happen to be 'doing' plenty, but I'm still waiting for you to answer my question, then maybe I'll entertain your question more seriously. So what do you think is warming the planet?

[dohboi]

SG, do have any updates on the situation of slr refugees from Pacific islands? Are they getting any love from the Aussies or from anyone else?

[KaiserJeep]

Doughboy, I'm sure you are aware there are many datasets which indicate the world has been warming since the Pleistocene glacial period. I don't care to have this debate with you, as I have moved past it, and told you so months ago.

What you have to realize, is that it does not matter what the root cause of the warming is, or whether it is manmade or natural. The important thing is it is happening, the world is getting warmer. The only thing that matters is how you plan to survive and to prepare your descendants to survive.

Because you see, we are not going to stop burning FF's, not ever. If we ceased to burn FF's billions of people would starve, it's not ever happening.

What is your plan to get your genes among the "saved"?

As for the topic of this thread, both Isle de Jean Charles and Newtok are toasted, it doesn't really matter which pops up first. Both coastal Alaska and the whole Mississippi delta and in fact all low lying coastal areas will flood, including New York City. By the way, them Cajuns are not moving anywhere that is 30-40 feet in altitude above their current beloved fetid swamps. They will however, be happy to let you pay to move them to a place only two feet higher and then pay again to move them 15 or 20 times, as long as they get to live in a house raised barely above the water and mud squishes between their toes when it rains. Just like the riverbank dwellers are happy to have the government rebuild their town for the 30th time.

Personally, I chose to live next to a huge fresh water lake which is 577 feet above sea level, and whose water level is regulated by a series of locks which will still be perfectly functional with the Atlantic Ocean 30 or 40 feet higher than it is now.

You see, I have a plan. I am not waiting for the "government" to save me. Then I'm teaching my grandkids to save themselves. Because I know beyond the slightest shadow of a doubt that the government exists for and cares for itself, not for the taxpayers. Most adults figure this out eventually.

That is why Isle de Jean Charles and Newtok are toasted. Until then, the debate over which is "saved" creates the useful deception that the government cares.

[dohboi]

OK, you don't want to answer my question. Don't expect others to give much of an answer to yours, then.

In the mean time, have a nice day!

[SeaGypsy]

SG, do have any updates on the situation of slr refugees from Pacific islands? Are they getting any love from the Aussies or from anyone else?

It gets talked about now & then, ND & Oz provide a lot of basic aid to south Pacific nations, medical & food for the malnourished. We have guest worker programs where islanders can come here to work & make decent wages. There are evacuation contingencies for worst case scenarios. Likely the lowest lying countries such as Tonga & Raru Tonga will end up being granted NZ or Australian permanent visas. So far this is still being negotiated, the countries involved are praying it doesn't happen, but given our migration numbers we would have no problem fitting these people in.

[Ibon]

Ghung,
I Tom Ibon to be talking to the select few on this board. We should strive for clarity as the world devolves around us. That's what I heard anyway.

Yes this is what I meant. When we speak about what we like or dislike or what we agree with or disagree with this puts a layer of ones ideology over physical phenomena. Something that evened the most reasoned scientists historically have struggled to avoid.

I brought it up because we are discussing the macro phenomena that will unfold when consequences start to raise sea levels and flood low lying populations. What does this have to do with whether we agree or not that condominiums should have never been built on barrier islands in the first place anyway.... as I said this is something most of us here probably agree with but that is not the point of discussion.

[dohboi]

Thanks, SG.

But won't that up to hundreds of thousands of people (at least) as more of these islands and island nations go under. Australia and NZ really be so happy to just take all these folks in? Just one of the 'sinking' island nations, Kiribati, has over 100,000 people in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati

[SeaGypsy]

We bring in 200,000 a year as it is. Most are investor visas, professional sponsored & spouses, the rest refugees. We love the islanders here, they would be welcome.

[Hawkcreek]

Ghung,
I Tom Ibon to be talking to the select few on this board. We should strive for clarity as the world devolves around us. That's what I heard anyway.

Yes this is what I meant. When we speak about what we like or dislike or what we agree with or disagree with this puts a layer of ones ideology over physical phenomena. Something that evened the most reasoned scientists historically have struggled to avoid.

I brought it up because we are discussing the macro phenomena that will unfold when consequences start to raise sea levels and flood low lying populations. What does this have to do with whether we agree or not that condominiums should have never been built on barrier islands in the first place anyway.... as I said this is something most of us here probably agree with but that is not the point of discussion.

Kinda strange - about 90 percent of the posts on this forum are about opinions, and likes and dislikes. Now you are saying that isn't allowed?
Yeah, right.

[ROCKMAN]

Hawk - True...everyone has a right to their opinions. But not all opinions are equal. Especially the ones that don't match mine. If we could just filter those out we would have much more productive conversations. LOL

[Ibon]

Kinda strange - about 90 percent of the posts on this forum are about opinions, and likes and dislikes. Now you are saying that isn't allowed?
Yeah, right.

As a social media site where we come together to share opinions this is not only allowed but helps in cultivating a sense of personality of each of our cyber identities. This is all fine since for about 90% of us this is what draws us in every day to come here and post....not clinically detached inquiry but rather a sense of brotherhood, regardless of how our opinions may differ, around a topic we all share a common interest in. Also opinions act as a barometer of our values. I have witnessed shifts in opinions over topics discussed 10 years ago compared to today. This is all instructive and interesting as it shows a cultural evolution of sorts around ideas and values as we adjust slowly to adapting to constraints.

Putting that aside we should just recognize that wishes and opinions are only that and have little bearing on the macro economic forces that will come into play once sea level rise forces a major revaluing of coastal property....and in the communities themselves living there.

I was only interjecting a bit of a cold shower of clinical detachment in considering the topic free of opinions and wishes. This is an exercise I practice unmercifully on myself. It helps in coming to certain objective clarification.

I was not suggesting that we should not share our opinions, this was not my intention.

[GHung]

Ibon wrote; "I brought it up because we are discussing the macro phenomena that will unfold when consequences start to raise sea levels and flood low lying populations. What does this have to do with whether we agree or not that condominiums should have never been built on barrier islands in the first place anyway.... as I said this is something most of us here probably agree with but that is not the point of discussion."

Seems to me that is the point of the discussion. In a macro sense, it ultimately comes down to where society's remaining resources will go. Whether or not some small village gets a relatively tiny portion of those resources is a values judgement, especially when (and I can guarantee it) massively more resources will be devoted to keeping the privileged happy and funded. They (and society tends to agree) are more entitled to build, and remain, anywhere they want. Money talks. These 'new' coastal communities are perceived to generate GDP even as the costs are socialised.

Hurricane Hermine (now tropical storm) is currently moving up the east coast from Florida, and, once again, we'll see many resources devoted to keeping these folks in their coastal communities, dealing with the aftermaths and rebuilding their infrastructure.

[Newfie]

I think that hierarchical structure is part of our Western culture, a critical part. So, yes, itsprety obvious we protect the privlidge class, hell we created it, and float it all along. It makes some kind of sense, it must. I've some ideas about why but nothing definitive.